[Reducing the impact of COVID-19 on radiation oncology units of developing countries: A rapid review and expert consensus]. / Reduciendo el impacto de COVID-19 sobre la radioterapia oncológica en países en desarrollo: revisión rápida y consenso de expertos.

OBJECTIVE: To generate recommendations on the management of radiotherapeutic treatments during the pandemic, adapted to a country with limited health resources. METHODS: We did a rapid review of the literature, searching for papers that describe any measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, as well as management guidelines to reduce the workload, in radiotherapy units. The following conditions were included in the scope of this review: gynecological tumors, breast cancer, gastrointestinal tumors, genitourinary tumors, head and neck tumors, skin cancer, tumors of the central nervous system, and lymphomas. An expert group discussed online the extracted data and drafted the recommendations. Using a modified Delphi method, the consensus was reached among 14 certificated radio-oncologists. The quality of the evidence that supported the recommendations on treatment schedules was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 57 documents were included. Of these, 25 provided strategies to reduce the risk of infection. Recommendations for each condiction were extracted from the remaining documents. The recommendations aim to establish specific parameters where treatments can be omitted, deferred, prioritized, and shortened. Treatment schemes are recommended for each condition, prioritizing hypo-fractionated schemes whenever possible. CONCLUSIONS: We propose strategies for the management of radiotherapy services to guarantee the continuity of high-quality treatments despite the health crisis caused by COVID-19.

OBJETIVO: Establecer recomendaciones para la toma de decisiones de manejo en radioterapia durante la pandemia de COVID-19, adaptadas a un país con recursos de salud limitados. MÉTODOS: A través de una revisión rápida de la literatura se buscaron publicaciones que describieran medidas para reducir el riesgo de infección por COVID-19, así como también pautas de manejo para reducir la carga de trabajo en las unidades de radioterapia. Se incluyeron en el alcance de esta revisión las siguientes patologías: tumores ginecológicos, cáncer de mama, tumores gastrointestinales, tumores genitourinarios, tumores de cabeza y cuello, cáncer de piel, tumores del sistema nervioso central y linfomas. Un grupo de expertos discutió en línea los datos extraídos y redactó las recomendaciones. Mediante un método Delphi modificado, se evaluó el consenso entre 14 radio-oncólogos certificados. Se evaluó la calidad de la evidencia que sustentó las recomendaciones sobre esquemas de tratamiento. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 57 documentos. De 25 trabajos se extrajeron las estrategias para reducir el riesgo de infección. De los restantes, se obtuvieron las recomendaciones para cada patología. Las recomendaciones están orientadas a establecer escenarios específicos donde se pueden omitir, diferir, priorizar y acortar los tratamientos. En el ítem de acortar se recomiendan esquemas de tratamiento para cada patología, priorizando los esquemas hipofraccionados cuando fue posible. CONCLUSIÓN: Se plantean estrategias para la gestión de los servicios de radioterapia con el objetivo de garantizar que los tratamientos de alta calidad para pacientes oncológicos sigan entregándose, pese a la crisis sanitaria ocasionada por COVID-19.

Therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an evidence mapping and appraisal of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Although cannabis and cannabinoids are widely used with therapeutic purposes, their claimed efficacy is highly controversial. For this reason, medical cannabis use is a broad field of research that is rapidly expanding. Our objectives are to identify, characterize, appraise, and organize the current available evidence surrounding therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids, using evidence maps. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) published from their inception up to December 2017. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We assessed methodological quality of the included SRs using the AMSTAR tool. To illustrate the extent of use of medical cannabis, we organized the results according to identified PICO questions using bubble plots corresponding to different clinical scenarios. RESULTS: A total of 44 SRs published between 2001 and 2017 were included in this evidence mapping with data from 158 individual studies. We extracted 96 PICO questions in the following medical conditions: multiple sclerosis, movement disorders (e.g. Tourette Syndrome, Parkinson Disease), psychiatry conditions, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, acute and chronic pain, cancer, neuropathic pain, symptoms related to cancer (e.g. emesis and anorexia related with chemotherapy), rheumatic disorders, HIV-related symptoms, glaucoma, and COPD. The evidence about these conditions is heterogeneous regarding the conclusions and the quality of the individual primary studies. The quality of the SRs was moderate to high according to AMSTAR scores. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on medical uses of cannabis is broad. However, due to methodological limitations, conclusions were weak in most of the assessed comparisons. Evidence mapping methodology is useful to perform an overview of available research, since it is possible to systematically describe the extent and distribution of evidence, and to organize scattered data.

Reduciendo el impacto de COVID-19 sobre la radioterapia oncológica en países en desarrollo: revisión rápida y consenso de expertos / Reducing the impact of COVID-19 on radiation oncology units of developing countries: a rapid review and expert consensus

OBJETIVO: Establecer recomendaciones para la toma de decisiones de manejo en radioterapia durante la pandemia de COVID-19, adaptadas a un país con recursos de salud limitados. MÉTODOS: A través de una revisión rápida de la literatura se buscaron publicaciones que describieran medidas para reducir el riesgo de infección por COVID-19, así como también pautas de manejo para reducir la carga de trabajo en las unidades de radioterapia. Se incluyeron en el alcance de esta revisión las siguientes patologías: tumores ginecológicos, cáncer de mama, tumores gastrointestinales, tumores genitourinarios, tumores de cabeza y cuello, cáncer de piel, tumores del sistema nervioso central y linfomas. Un grupo de expertos discutió en línea los datos extraídos y redactó las recomendaciones. Mediante un método Delphi modificado, se evaluó el consenso entre 14 radio-oncólogos certificados. Se evaluó la calidad de la evidencia que sustentó las recomendaciones sobre esquemas de tratamiento. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 57 documentos. De 25 trabajos se extrajeron las estrategias para reducir el riesgo de infección. De los restantes, se obtuvieron las recomendaciones para cada patología. Las recomendaciones están orientadas a establecer escenarios específicos donde se pueden omitir, diferir, priorizar y acortar los tratamientos. En el ítem de acortar se recomiendan esquemas de tratamiento para cada patología, priorizando los esquemas hipofraccionados cuando fue posible. CONCLUSIÓN: Se plantean estrategias para la gestión de los servicios de radioterapia con el objetivo de garantizar que los tratamientos de alta calidad para pacientes oncológicos sigan entregándose, pese a la crisis sanitaria ocasionada por COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To generate recommendations on the management of radiotherapeutic treatments during the pandemic, adapted to a country with limited health resources. METHODS: We did a rapid review of the literature, searching for papers that describe any measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, as well as management guidelines to reduce the workload, in radiotherapy units. The following conditions were included in the scope of this review: gynecological tumors, breast cancer, gastrointestinal tumors, genitourinary tumors, head and neck tumors, skin cancer, tumors of the central nervous system, and lymphomas. An expert group discussed online the extracted data and drafted the recommendations. Using a modified Delphi method, the consensus was reached among 14 certificated radio-oncologists. The quality of the evidence that supported the recommendations on treatment schedules was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 57 documents were included. Of these, 25 provided strategies to reduce the risk of infection. Recommendations for each condiction were extracted from the remaining documents. The recommendations aim to establish specific parameters where treatments can be omitted, deferred, prioritized, and shortened. Treatment schemes are recommended for each condition, prioritizing hypo-fractionated schemes whenever possible. CONCLUSIONS: We propose strategies for the management of radiotherapy services to guarantee the continuity of high-quality treatments despite the health crisis caused by COVID-19.

Quality of clinical practice guidelines about red blood cell transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are essential in health care. The quality of recommendations included in clinical practice guidelines (CPG), regarding this intervention, has not been systematically evaluated. This paper systematically assessed CPGs for RBC-transfusion, to appraise their methodological quality, to explore changes in quality over time, and to assess the consistency of the hemoglobin threshold (HT) recommendations. METHODS: We searched for CPGs that included recommendations of RBC-transfusion in generic databases, compiler entities, registries, clearinghouses and guideline developers. Three reviewers extracted data on CPGs characteristics and HT recommendations, independently appraised the quality of the studies using AGREE II and resolved disagreements by consensus. RESULTS: We examined 16 CPGs. Mean scores (mean ± SD) were: scope and purpose (59.4% ± 19.8%), stakeholder involvement (43.2% ± 22.6%), rigor of development (50% ± 25%), clarity of presentation (74.4% ± 12.6%), applicability (19.4% ± 18.8%), and editorial independence (41% ± 30%). Seven CPGs recommended a restrictive strategy for RBC transfusion; four CPGs gave a guarded statement considering an HT of 7 g/dL, as safe to prescribe an RBC transfusion. Eight CPGs did not provide an HT stating that RBC transfusions should not be prescribed by HT alone. CONCLUSIONS: Only 3 out of the 16 evaluated CPGs were "recommended" by the independent evaluators. Four domains "stakeholder involvement," "rigor of development," applicability," and "editorial independence" had serious shortcomings. Recommendations about the use of an HT for RBC-transfusion were heterogeneous among guidelines. Greater efforts are needed to provide high-quality CPGs in the RBC-transfusion practice.

Quality assessment of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals in Spanish: An observational study through handsearching and evidence mapping.

Few Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain are indexed in major databases; controlled clinical trials published in these journals cannot be exhaustively retrieved using electronic literature searches. We aimed to identify, describe and assess the quality of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain through handsearching and evidence mapping methods. We identified controlled clinical trials published in eligible Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals in Spanish until July 2017 by handsearching. Data were extracted for controlled clinical trials main characteristics and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the controlled clinical trials methodological quality. In addition, we mapped the main findings of these trials. As a result, we assessed 5631 references in 29 eligible journals of which 57 were controlled clinical trials (1.0%). Controlled clinical trials were published between 1995 and 2017 at a rate of 2.5 per year. Journals from Spain and Mexico published around 63% of the controlled clinical trials identified. The median sample size of patients enrolled was 60 (range = 30-300 participants). About conditions assessed, 38.5% of controlled clinical trials assessed issues related to knee conditions, 15.7% about hip and 10.5% about trauma or spine. The risk of bias domains most affected was selective reporting bias and random sequence generation. In addition, only two and seven trials had low risk of bias in all items related to participant/personnel and outcome assessment blindings, respectively. More than 40% of studies did not report differences on benefits/harms between the interventions assessed. As a conclusion, the number of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain is low. These controlled clinical trials had important methodological shortcomings and were judged as unclear or high risk of bias. These trials are now available in CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews and other documents of synthesis.

The remarkable geographical pattern of gastric cancer mortality in Ecuador.

AIM: This study was aimed to describe the gastric cancer mortality trend, and to analyze the spatial distribution of gastric cancer mortality in Ecuador, between 2004 and 2015. METHODS: Data were collected from the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC) database. Crude gastric cancer mortality rates, standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and indirect standardized mortality rates (ISMRs) were calculated per 100,000 persons. For time trend analysis, joinpoint regression was used. The annual percentage rate change (APC) and the average annual percent change (AAPC) was computed for each province. Spatial age-adjusted analysis was used to detect high risk clusters of gastric cancer mortality, from 2010 to 2015, using Kulldorff spatial scan statistics. RESULTS: In Ecuador, between 2004 and 2015, gastric cancer caused a total of 19,115 deaths: 10,679 in men and 8436 in women. When crude rates were analyzed, a significant decline was detected (AAPC: -1.8%; p<0.001). ISMR also decreased, but this change was not statistically significant (APC: -0.53%; p=0.36). From 2004 to 2007 and from 2008 to 2011 the province with the highest ISMR was Carchi; and, from 2012 to 2015, was Cotopaxi. The most likely high occurrence cluster included Bolívar, Los Ríos, Chimborazo, Tungurahua, and Cotopaxi provinces, with a relative risk of 1.34 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: There is a substantial geographic variation in gastric cancer mortality rates among Ecuadorian provinces. The spatial analysis indicates the presence of high occurrence clusters throughout the Andes Mountains.