Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness. RESULTS: Keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise. CONCLUSION: Cited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used.

Denosumab in patients with cancer and skeletal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and safety of denosumab in reducing skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with bone metastases. METHODS: A literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Collaboration Library identified relevant controlled clinical trials up-to-March 14, 2012. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, according to predetermined criteria, and extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes of interest were SRE, time to first on-study SRE, and overall survival. Secondary outcomes included pain, quality of life, bone turnover markers (BTM), and adverse events. RESULTS: Six controlled trials including 6142 patients were analyzed. Compared to zoledronic acid, denosumab had lower incidence of SRE with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.80-0.88), delayed the onset of first on-study SRE (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.75-0.90) and time to worsening of pain (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.77-0.91). No difference was observed in overall survival with pooled hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.90-1.0). For total adverse events, denosumab was similar to zoledronic acid (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.89-1.0). No significant differences were observed in the frequency of osteonecrosis of the jaw (RR 1.4; 95% CI 0.92-2.1). Patients on denosumab had a greater risk of developing hypocalcemia (RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.6-2.3). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab was more effective than zoledronic acid in reducing the incidence of SRE, and delayed the time to SRE. No differences were found between denosumab and zoledronic acid in reducing overall mortality, or in the frequency of overall adverse events.

Epidural space identification: a meta-analysis of complications after air versus liquid as the medium for loss of resistance.

BACKGROUND: The best method for identifying the epidural space for neuraxial blocks is controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that loss of resistance with liquid reduces complications with epidural placement. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for prospective, randomized studies comparing air versus liquid as the medium for loss of resistance during epidural space identification in adults. Data were abstracted from 5 studies (4 obstetric and 1 nonobstetric) (n = 4422 patients) that met inclusion criteria and analyzed for the following 6 outcomes: difficult catheter insertion, paresthesia, intravascular catheter insertion, accidental dural puncture, postdural puncture headache, and partial block. RESULTS: The overall risk differences for adverse outcome between the different mediums were not statistically different for the obstetric population. A small, but statistically significant, risk difference for postdural puncture headache was observed when fluid was used during epidural placement for chronic pain management. CONCLUSION: Larger studies that overcome limitations of heterogeneity across studies and a relatively infrequent occurrence of complications are required to determine the optimal medium for loss of resistance during epidural block.

Economic evaluation in critical care: a focus on severe sepsis in oncology.

Hospital care, physician and clinical services, and prescription drugs continue to drive healthcare expenditures across healthcare systems and nations. The critical-care setting, owing to the complexity and intensity of care, is a high user of the resources that drive healthcare spending. Information regarding the cost and effectiveness of critical-care therapies is necessary to properly guide care and policies for this unique population. Many challenges exist for conducting and comparing economic evaluation in critical care. Recently, recommendations on cost and cost-effectiveness analysis in critical care have been developed that will guide future research. A focus area, severe sepsis in oncology, is reviewed to highlight the challenges and opportunities of economic evaluation in this setting.