TY - JOUR A1 - Reis, Stefanie A1 - Popp, Maria A1 - Schmid, Benedikt A1 - Stegemann, Miriam A1 - Metzendorf, Maria-Inti A1 - Kranke, Peter A1 - Meybohm, Patrick A1 - Weibel, Stephanie T1 - Safety and efficacy of intermediate- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine N2 - 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. KW - anticoagulant therapy KW - coronavirus disease 2019 KW - thrombosis KW - bleeding KW - death Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-252285 SN - 2077-0383 VL - 11 IS - 1 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Stangl, Stephanie A1 - Popp, Maria A1 - Reis, Stefanie A1 - Sitter, Magdalena A1 - Saal-Bauernschubert, Lena A1 - Schießer, Selina A1 - Kranke, Peter A1 - Choorapoikayil, Suma A1 - Weibel, Stephanie A1 - Meybohm, Patrick T1 - Reported outcomes in patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia undergoing major surgery: a systematic review of outcomes JF - Systematic Reviews N2 - 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 KW - iron deficiency KW - iron deficiency anemia KW - core outcome set KW - outcome reporting KW - data harmonization KW - preoperative setting KW - perioperative setting KW - surgery Y1 - 2024 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-357213 VL - 13 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Weibel, Stephanie A1 - Popp, Maria A1 - Reis, Stefanie A1 - Skoetz, Nicole A1 - Garner, Paul A1 - Sydenham, Emma T1 - Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis JF - Research Synthesis Methods N2 - 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. KW - COVID-19 pandemic KW - systematic review KW - research integrity KW - randomized controlled trial KW - good clinical practice KW - evidence synthesis Y1 - 2023 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-318236 VL - 14 IS - 3 SP - 357 EP - 369 ER -