Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Year of publication
- 2022 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Keywords
- meta-analysis (3) (remove)
Background
The clinical significance of vitamin D administration in critically ill patients remains inconclusive. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of vitamin D and its metabolites on major clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, including a subgroup analysis based on vitamin D status and route of vitamin D administration.
Methods
Major databases were searched through February 9, 2022. Randomized controlled trials of adult critically ill patients with an intervention group receiving vitamin D or its metabolites were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Risk of bias assessment included the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.
Results
Sixteen randomized clinical trials with 2449 patients were included. Vitamin D administration was associated with lower overall mortality (16 studies: risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62–0.97, p = 0.03; I2 = 30%), reduced intensive care unit length of stay (12 studies: mean difference − 3.13 days, 95% CI − 5.36 to − 0.89, n = 1250, p = 0.006; I2 = 70%), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (9 studies: mean difference − 5.07 days, 95% CI − 7.42 to − 2.73, n = 572, p < 0.0001; I2 = 54%). Parenteral administration was associated with a greater effect on overall mortality than enteral administration (test of subgroup differences, p = 0.04), whereas studies of parenteral subgroups had lower quality. There were no subgroup differences based on baseline vitamin D levels.
Conclusions
Vitamin D supplementation in critically ill patients may reduce mortality. Parenteral administration might be associated with a greater impact on mortality. Heterogeneity and assessed certainty among the studies limits the generalizability of the results.
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.
(1) Background: Locoregional lymphadenectomy (LND) in adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) may impact oncological outcome, but the findings from individual studies are conflicting. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the oncological value of LND in ACC by summarizing the available literature. (2) Methods: A systematic search on studies published until December 2020 was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The primary outcome was the impact of lymphadenectomy on overall survival (OS). Two separate meta-analyses were performed for studies including patients with localized ACC (stage I–III) and those including all tumor stages (I–IV). Secondary endpoints included postoperative mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS). (3) Results: 11 publications were identified for inclusion. All studies were retrospective studies, published between 2001–2020, and 5 were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies (N = 807 patients) reported the impact of LND on disease-specific survival in patients with stage I–III ACC and revealed a survival benefit of LND (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.26–0.68). Based on results of studies including patients with ACC stage I–IV (2 studies, N = 3934 patients), LND was not associated with a survival benefit (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.70–1.42). None of the included studies showed an association between LND and postoperative mortality or LOS. (4) Conclusion: Locoregional lymphadenectomy seems to offer an oncologic benefit in patients undergoing curative-intended surgery for localized ACC (stage I–III).