Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Use in Guidelines Published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology: A Review.

TOPIC: We reviewed the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of ophthalmologic conditions as recommended by the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patient-reported outcome measures are standardized instruments that provide information regarding a patient's health status or health-related quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used to inform study end points in ophthalmology studies. However, the extent to which PROMs are ultimately informing patient management recommendations in ophthalmology as part of CPGs remains an area of evidence gap. METHODS: We included all CPGs published by the AAO from inception to June 2022. We also included all primary studies and systematic reviews cited in the treatment sections of the CPGs evaluating treatment of an ophthalmic condition. The primary outcome was the frequency of PROMs discussed in CPGs and in cited studies evaluating treatment. Secondary outcomes included frequency of minimal important difference (MID) use to contextualize PROM results and percentage of strong and discretionary recommendations supported by PROMs. We published a study protocol a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42022307427). Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We assessed risk of bias using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: We identified 24 eligible CPGs, providing 2458 cited studies (2191 primary, 267 secondary) evaluating treatment of eye conditions. Ten CPGs (41.7%) reported consideration of PROMs. Of these, 31 of 94 (33%) recommendations were informed by studies evaluating a PROM as an outcome. Across all studies cited in the development of CPGs, 221 (9.0%) used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome, of which 4 PROM results (1.8%) were interpreted using an empirically determined MID. Overall, the risk of bias was low for all CPGs. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, outcomes of PROMs are seldom used in ophthalmology CPGs published by the AAO and in cited primary and secondary research on treatments. When PROMs were considered, their interpretation was seldom based on an MID. To improve patient care, guideline developers may consider incorporating PROMs and applicable MIDs to inform key outcomes when formulating treatment recommendations. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Presentation approaches for enhancing interpretability of patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses: a systematic survey of Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically survey Cochrane reviews' approaches to calculating, presenting, and interpreting pooled estimates of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We retrospectively selected 200 Cochrane reviews that met the eligibility criteria. Two researchers independently extracted the pooled effect measures and approaches for pooling and interpreting the effect measures, reaching consensus through discussions. RESULTS: When primary studies used the same PROM, Cochrane review authors most often used mean differences (MDs) (81.9%) for calculating the pooled effect measures; when primary studies used different PROMs, the review authors often applied standardized mean differences (SMDs) (54.3%). Although in most cases (80.1%) the review authors interpreted the importance of effect, they failed, in 48.5% of the pooled effect measures, to report criteria for categorizing the magnitude of effect. When authors interpreted the importance of the effect, for those with primary studies using the same PROM, they most often referred to the minimally important differences (MIDs) (75.0%); for those with primary studies using different PROMs, the approaches used varied. CONCLUSION: Cochrane review authors most often used MDs or SMDs for calculating and presenting the pooled effect measures of PROs but often failed to make explicit their criteria for categorizing the magnitude of effect.

An extension minimal important difference credibility item addressing construct proximity is a reliable alternative to the correlation item.

OBJECTIVES: Minimal important difference (MID), the smallest change or difference that patients perceive as important, aids interpretation of change in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores. A credibility instrument that assesses the methodological rigor of an anchor-based MID includes one core item addressing the correlation between the PROM and the anchor. However, the majority of MID studies in the literature fail to report the correlation. To address this issue, we extended the anchor-based MID credibility instrument by adding an item addressing construct proximity as an alternative to the correlation item. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Informed by an MID methodological survey, we added an alternative item-a subjective assessment of similarity of the constructs (i.e., construct proximity) between PROM and anchor-to the correlation item and generated principles for the assessment. We sampled 101 MIDs and analyzed the assessments performed by each pair of raters. By calculating weighted Cohen's kappa, we assessed the reliability of the assessments. RESULTS: Construct proximity assessment is based on the anticipated association between the anchor and PROM constructs: the closer the anticipated association, the higher the rating. Our detailed principles address the most frequently used anchors: transition ratings, measures of satisfaction, other PROMs, and clinical measures. The assessments showed acceptable agreement (weighted kappa 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.94) between raters. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a reported correlation coefficient, construct proximity assessment provides a useful alternative in the credibility assessment of anchor-based MID estimates.

Prognosis of older patients with newly diagnosed AML undergoing antileukemic therapy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The prognostic value of age and other non-hematological factors in predicting outcomes in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing antileukemic therapy is not well understood. We performed a systematic review to determine the association between these factors and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue among these patients. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase through October 2021 for studies in which researchers quantified the relationship between age, comorbidities, frailty, performance status, or functional status; and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue in older patients with AML receiving antileukemic therapy. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, conducted random-effects meta-analyses, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 90 studies. Meta-analysis showed that age (per 5-year increase, HR 1.16 95% CI 1.11-1.21, high-quality evidence), comorbidities (Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 1.60 95% CI 1.31-1.95, high-quality evidence), and performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/ World Health Organization (ECOG/WHO): 2+ VS less than 2, HR 1.63 95% CI 1.43-1.86, high-quality evidence; ECOG/WHO: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 2.00 95% CI 1.52-2.63, moderate-quality evidence) were associated with long-term mortality. These studies provided inconsistent and non-informative results on short-term mortality (within 90 days) and quality of life. CONCLUSION: High-quality or moderate-quality evidence support that age, comorbidities, performance status predicts the long-term prognosis of older patients with AML undergoing antileukemic treatment.

Serious reporting deficiencies exist in minimal important difference studies: current state and suggestions for improvement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reporting of minimal important difference (MID) estimates using anchor-based methods for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the association with reporting deficiencies on their credibility. METHODS: Systematic survey of primary studies empirically estimating MIDs. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database until October 2018. We evaluated study reporting, focusing on participants' demographics, intervention(s), characteristics of PROMs and anchors, and MID estimation method(s). We assessed the impact of reporting issues on credibility of MID estimates. RESULTS: In 585 studies reporting on 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs, authors frequently failed to adequately report key characteristics of PROMs and MIDs, including minimum and maximum values of PROM scale, measure of variability accompanying the MID estimate and number of participants included in the MID calculation. Across MID estimates (n = 5,324), the most serious reporting issues impacting credibility included infrequent reporting of the correlation between the anchor and PROM (66%), inadequate details to judge precision of MID point estimate (13%), and insufficient information about the threshold used to ascertain MIDs (16%). CONCLUSION: Serious issues of incomplete reporting in the MID literature threaten the optimal use of MID estimates to inform the magnitude of effects of interventions on PROMs.

Minimal important changes in standard deviation units are highly variable and no universally applicable value can be determined.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the distribution of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC) estimates in standard deviation (SD) units and examine if the robustness of such estimates depends on the specific SD used or on the methodological credibility of the anchor-based estimates. DESIGN AND SETTING: We included all anchor-based MIC estimates from studies published in MEDLINE and relevant literature databases upto October 2018. Each MIC was converted to SD units using baseline, endpoint, and change from baseline SDs. We performed a descriptive analysis of MICs in SD units and checked how the distribution would change if MICs with low methodological credibility were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: We included 1,009 MIC estimates from 182 studies. The medians and interquartile ranges of MICs in SD units were 0.43 (0.25 to 0.69), 0.42 (0.22 to 0.70), and 0.51 (0.28 to 0.78) for baseline, endpoint, and change SD units, respectively. Some MICs were extremely large or small. The distribution did not change significantly after excluding MICs estimated by less credible methods. CONCLUSIONS: The size of the universally applicable MIC in SD units could not be determined. Anchor-based MICs in SD units were widely distributed, with more than half in the range of 0.2 to 0.8.

The 12- and 24-Month Effects of Intravitreal Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, and Bevacizumab on Intraocular Pressure: A Network Meta-Analysis.

TOPIC: To investigate the effect of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy on intraocular pressure (IOP) 12 and 24 months after initiation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is unclear whether serial anti-VEGF injections result in sustained IOP increases. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF agents with each other or with controls for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, retinal vein occlusions, or diabetic macular edema were included. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis examined the proportion of patients whose IOP (1) increased 5 mmHg or more from baseline on consecutive visits, (2) increased 10 mmHg or more from baseline at any visit, (3) was 21 mmHg or more on consecutive visits, (4) was 25 mmHg or more at any visit, (5) was 30 mmHg or more at any visit, (6) prompted initiation of IOP-lowering medications, or (7) increased as per the clinicians' discretion. Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluations methodology informed the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-six RCTs of 12 522 eyes were included. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, ranibizumab (0.3 mg and 0.5 mg), and noninjection controls were analyzed. Eighty-three of 84 network estimates for comparisons between anti-VEGF agents demonstrated no statistically significant difference (low to moderate certainty of evidence). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg showed higher rates than bevacizumab of IOP measurements of 30 mmHg or more at 12 months (low certainty of evidence). Fifty-three of 56 network estimates for comparisons between anti-VEGF agents and controls demonstrated no statistically significant difference (low to moderate certainty of evidence). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg showed higher rates of consecutive IOP increases of 5 mmHg or more at 24 months (low certainty of evidence) and higher rates of IOP increases as per the clinicians' discretion at 12 and 24 months (low and very low certainty of evidence, respectively). The 95% credible intervals in comparisons without statistically significant effects did not rule out important clinical effects. The certainty of evidence in these comparisons is limited by imprecision. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis does not show any clear difference in IOP increases 12 and 24 months after treatment initiation between anti-VEGF agents and controls. Imprecision precludes definitive conclusions.

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021). Review methods: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis. Results: Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically survey the literature addressing the reporting of studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) and choice of optimal MIDs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, Embase and PsycINFO from 1987 to March 2020. Teams of two reviewers independently identified eligible publications and extracted quotations addressing relevant issues for reporting and/or selecting anchor-based MIDs. Using a coding list, we assigned the same code to quotations capturing similar or related issues. For each code, we generated an 'item', i.e., a specific phrase or sentence capturing the underlying concept. When multiple concepts existed under a single code, the team created multiple items for that code. We clustered codes addressing a broader methodological issue into a 'category' and classified items as relevant for reporting, relevant for selecting an anchor-based MID, or both. RESULTS: We identified 136 eligible publications that provided 6 categories (MID definition, anchors, patient-reported outcome measures, generalizability and statistics) and 24 codes. These codes contained 34 items related to reporting MID studies, of which 29 were also related to selecting MIDs. CONCLUSION: The systematic survey identified items related to reporting of anchor-based MID studies and selecting optimal MIDs. These provide a conceptual framework to inform the design of studies related to MIDs, and a basis for developing a reporting standard and a selection approach for MIDs.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Cough symptom severity in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a systematic survey and conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND: Cough severity represents an important subjective endpoint in assessing the effectiveness of therapies for patients with chronic cough. Although cough-specific quality of life questionnaires exist, a widely available cough severity instrument with established measurement properties remains unavailable. AIMS: To identify and summarise the results of studies reporting on the experience of patients with chronic cough and, in the process, develop a conceptual framework to inform development of a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) addressing cough severity. RESULTS: We identified 61 eligible studies reporting on patient experience with chronic cough. Studies provided 82 potential items, of which 43 proved unique and relevant to cough severity. The urge-to-cough sensation and the cough symptom itself represented broad domains of cough severity. Two subdomains under urge-to-cough included frequency (1 item) and intensity (1 item). Five subdomains under cough symptoms included control (2 items), frequency (6 items), bout duration (1 item), intensity (8 items), and associated features/sequelae (24 items). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic survey and conceptual framework identified items and domains of cough severity in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. The results support item generation and content validity for a PROM assessing cough severity.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings.

OBJECTIVE: To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance. RESULTS: Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating. CONCLUSION: GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.

Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs. RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%). CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

Mind the methods of determining minimal important differences: three critical issues to consider.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trialists, meta-analysts and clinical guideline developers are increasingly using minimal important differences (MIDs) to enhance the interpretability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Here, we elucidate three critical issues of which MID users should be aware. Improved understanding of MID concepts and awareness of common pitfalls in methodology and reporting will better inform the application of MIDs in clinical research and decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to inform the development of an inventory of anchor-based MID estimates for PROMs. We searched four electronic databases to identify primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adolescent or adult populations across all clinical areas. Our findings are based on information from 338 studies reporting 3389 MIDs for 358 PROMs published between 1989 and 2015. RESULTS: We identified three key issues in the MID literature that demand attention. (1) The profusion of terms representing the MID concept adds unnecessary complexity to users' task in identifying relevant MIDs, requiring meticulous inspection of methodology to ensure estimates offered truly reflect the MID. (2) A multitude of diverse methods for MID estimation that will yield different estimates exist, and whether there are superior options remains unresolved. (3) There are serious issues of incomplete presentation and reporting of key aspects of the design, methodology and results of studies providing anchor-based MIDs, which threatens the optimal use of these estimates for interpretation of intervention effects on PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the MID represents a powerful tool for enhancing the interpretability of PROMs, realising its full value will require improved understanding and reporting of its measurement fundamentals.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a leading cause of disability worldwide, with displaced femoral neck fractures being of particular concern. A recent meta-analysis reported that total hip arthroplasty (THA) was superior to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in terms of reoperations, but inferior in terms of dislocations. However, publication of 4 additional randomized controlled trials that enrolled nearly 1,780 additional patients merits an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of 4 databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing THA and HA in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. For patient-reported outcomes, the minimally important difference informed calculation of risk differences. We performed a subgroup analysis to address the possible impact of risk of bias and performed meta-regression to assess the possible impact of duration of follow-up. RESULTS: Sixteen studies that enrolled 3,084 patients randomized to undergo THA (n = 1,521) or HA (n = 1,563) proved eligible. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the revision rate at up to 5 years of follow-up or functional outcome at up to 3 years. Health-related quality of life was superior in the THA group (mean difference [MD] = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02 to 0.07, minimally important difference, 0.145). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of dislocation or periprosthetic fracture incidence. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HA group (MD = 22 minutes, 95% CI = 9 to 35 minutes). Analyses addressing risk of bias and length of follow-up did not reveal subgroup differences. Certainty of evidence for all outcomes was rated as moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The best evidence showed, with moderate certainty, that HA and THA likely result in similar revision rate, function, mortality, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation at up to 5 years, with a small, possibly unimportant benefit in health-related quality of life with THA. More specifically, the improvements are well below established cutoffs for clinical importance. Almost half of all patients were from a single large randomized controlled trial, although the results were consistent across the studies. In addition, HA likely results in a clinically unimportant reduction in operative time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.