Role of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in the Prevention of Gallstones Formation in Bariatric Patients-a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Trials.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess whether treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in patients who have undergone bariatric surgery reduces gallstone formation. A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PROSPERO, Google Scholar and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry platform). RCTs without restrictions on study language, year, status of publication and patient's age were used. Pooled risk ratios were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses for drug dose, duration and procedure types were performed. Sensitivity analyses and a summary of findings table were generated to assess the robustness and the level of evidence provided, respectively. Fourteen trials were included (3619 patients, 2292 in UDCA vs 1327 in control group). Procedures included SG, RYGB, OAGB, AGB and Gastroplasty. UDCA dose ranged from 300 to 1200 mg per day. Gallstone formation occurred in 19.3% (8.3% in UDCA vs 38.1% in the control group). UDCA significantly reduced the risk of gallstone formation (14 trials, 3619 patients; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.41; P < 0.001). UDCA significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic gallstone disease (6 trials, 2458 patients; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21-0.43; P < 0.001). No subgroup difference was found for different doses, duration and type of procedure performed. Oral UDCA treatment significantly reduces the risks of developing gallstones in postoperative bariatric patients from 38 to 8%. The use of 500 to 600 mg UDCA for 6 months is effective and should be implemented in all patients post-bariatric surgery.

A Systematic Review of Patient Race, Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Educational Attainment in Prostate Cancer Treatment Randomised Trials-Is the Evidence Base Applicable to the General Patient Population?

Context: Prostate cancer (PC) disproportionately affects men of Black race, and lower educational and socioeconomic status. Guidelines are based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, the representation of different races, educations, and socioeconomic backgrounds in these trials is unclear. Objective: To assess reporting of equality, diversity, and inclusion characteristics (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion [EDI]) and differences in treatment effects between different races, and educational or socioeconomic status. Evidence acquisition: We conducted a systematic review of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in April 2020 examining RCTs investigating treatments for PC. Outcomes collected were race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. RCTs investigating PC treatment in any population or setting were included. Data extraction of characteristics was performed independently by pairs of reviewers and checked by a senior author. The Cochrane risk of bias tool assessed the quality of included papers. Evidence synthesis: A total of 265 trials were included, and 138 of these were available as full-text articles. Fifty-four trials including 19 039 participants reported any EDI data. All 54 trials reported race, 11 reported ethnicity, three reported educational attainment, and one reported socioeconomic status. Patients of White race were the majority of the recruited population (82.6%), while the minority prevalence was as follows: Black 9.8% and Asian 5.7%. Three studies reported mortality outcomes depending on the participant's race. All three studies investigated different treatments, so a meta-analysis was not performed. No studies reported outcomes stratified by the educational or socioeconomic status of participants. Conclusions: There is poor reporting of patient race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and educational attainment in RCTs for PC treatments between 2010 and 2020. Addressing this for future studies will help explain differences in the incidence of and mortality from PC and improve the generalisability of results. Patient summary: In this study, we reviewed prostate cancer treatment trials to see whether these reported race, education, and socioeconomic backgrounds of their patient populations. We conclude that reporting of these characteristics is poor. This needs to be improved in future to improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer of all ethnical, racial, and socioeconomic groups.

The Effect of Pre-operative Exercise Intervention on Patient Outcomes Following Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

This systematic review aimed to assess the effect of a pre-operative exercise intervention on short- and long-term health and clinical outcomes for adult patients undergoing bariatric surgery (BS). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), SPORTDiscus and reference lists of relevant papers, through March 2021. Five randomised controlled trials were included (n = 199 patients). Modest increases in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max) were found at both pre-operative (0.73 mL kg-1 min-1, P ≤ 0.001) and maximum follow-up time points (0.98 mL kg-1 min-1, P ≤ 0.04). There was no significant effect of an exercise intervention on percentage total weight loss (%TWL). Pre-operative exercise can induce significant short- and long-term improvements in fitness in individuals with obesity. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether pre-operative training impacts other post-operative clinical outcomes.

The Impact of the Largest National Joint Registry on Current Knee Replacement Longevity Estimates: An Analysis and Review of Knee Prosthesis Brand and Fixation Technique.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Joint Registry is the single largest joint registry in the world enrolling 1.3 million patients and recently reaching 17 years of follow-up data. Current knee prosthesis longevity estimates are based off smaller sized international registries and the impact of fixation type on prosthesis survival remains unclear. METHODS: We used the UK National Joint Registry 17th annual report to calculate pooled mean survival estimates of total knee replacements (TKRs), unicondylar knee replacements (UKRs), and patellofemoral knee replacements at 10 and 15 years based on both construct brand and fixation technique (cemented vs uncemented). Independent t-testing was performed for significance. RESULTS: All-cause survivorship of TKRs at 10 and 15 years is 96.7% and 95.4%, respectively. For UKRs it is 89.8% and 80.7% and for patellofemoral knee replacements it is 81.6% and 76.5%. In regard to fixation technique, cemented and uncemented TKRs show similar survivorship at both time points. For UKRs uncemented constructs showed improved survivorship compared to cemented at 10 years (92.7% vs 88.2%, P < .001). This was greatest among those <65 years of age. In fact, all construct types regardless of fixation showed increased rate of revision in those <65 years vs those ≥65 years. CONCLUSION: We provide more accurate estimations for knee prosthesis survival and highlight that younger patients, particularly those receiving UKRs, are prone to greater revision risks. This data also suggests that uncemented fixation may offer improved joint survival in these patients.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently there are two surgical options for potentially curable patients (i.e. people with non-metastatic gastric cancer), laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, it is not clear whether one of these options is superior. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy or laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for people with gastric cancer. In particular, we planned to investigate the effects by patient groups, such as cancer stage, anaesthetic risk, and body mass index (BMI), and by intervention methods, such as method of anastomosis, type of gastrectomy and laparoscopic or laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) until September 2015. We also screened reference lists from included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full text articles for selected references. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 2794 participants were randomised in 13 trials included in this review. All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (which included 53 participants) did not contribute any data to this review. A total of 213 participants were excluded in the remaining trials after randomisation, leaving a total of 2528 randomised participants for analysis, with 1288 undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and 1240 undergoing open gastrectomy. All the participants were suitable for major surgery.There was no difference in the proportion of participants who died within thirty days of treatment between laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/1188: adjusted proportion = 0.6% (based on meta-analysis)) and open gastrectomy (4/1447: 0.3%) (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.10; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; participants = 2335; studies = 11; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). There were no events in either group for short-term recurrence (participants = 103; studies = 3), proportion requiring blood transfusion (participants = 66; studies = 2), and proportion with positive margins at histopathology (participants = 28; studies = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, time to return to normal activity or time to return to work. The differences in long-term mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; participants = 195; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), serious adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/216: adjusted proportion = 3.6%) versus open gastrectomy (13/216: 6%) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; participants = 432; studies = 8; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), long-term recurrence (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 162; studies = 4; very low quality evidence), adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (204/268: adjusted proportion = 16.1%) versus open gastrectomy (253/1222: 20.7%) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.01; participants = 2490; studies = 11; I(2) = 38%; very low quality evidence), quantity of perioperative blood transfused (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.38; participants = 143; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.82 days, 95% CI -3.72 to 0.07; participants = 319; studies = 6; I(2) = 83%; very low quality evidence), and number of lymph nodes harvested (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.25; participants = 472; studies = 9; I(2) = 40%; very low quality evidence) were imprecise. There was no alteration in the interpretation of the results in any of the subgroups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, there is no difference in short-term mortality between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. Based on very low quality evidence, there is no evidence for any differences in short-term or long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, the data are sparse, and the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting that significant benefits or harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy cannot be ruled out. Several trials are currently being conducted and interim results of these trials have been included in this review. These trials need to perform intention-to-treat analysis to ensure that the results are reliable and report the results according to the CONSORT Statement.

Non-surgical versus surgical treatment for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently surgery is the recommended treatment modality when possible. However, it is unclear whether non-surgical treatment options is equivalent to oesophagectomy in terms of survival. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-surgical treatment versus oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to 4th March 2016. We also screened reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts of articles obtained from the literature searches and selected references for further assessment. For these selected references, we based trial inclusion on assessment of the full-text articles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials, which included 1132 participants in total, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. These trials were at high risk of bias trials. One trial (which included five participants) did not contribute any data to this Cochrane review, and we excluded 13 participants in the remaining trials after randomisation; this left a total of 1114 participants, 510 randomised to non-surgical treatment and 604 to surgical treatment for analysis. The non-surgical treatment was definitive chemoradiotherapy in five trials and definitive radiotherapy in three trials. All participants were suitable for major surgery. Most of the data were from trials that compared chemoradiotherapy with surgery. There was no difference in long-term mortality between chemoradiotherapy and surgery (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.03; 602 participants; four studies; low quality evidence). The long-term mortality was higher in radiotherapy than surgery (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.64; 512 participants; three studies; very low quality evidence). There was no difference in long-term recurrence between non-surgical treatment and surgery (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; 349 participants; two studies; low quality evidence). The difference between non-surgical and surgical treatments was imprecise for short-term mortality (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.35; 689 participants; five studies; very low quality evidence), the proportion of participants with serious adverse in three months (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.47; 80 participants; one study; very low quality evidence), and proportion of people with local recurrence at maximal follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.12; 449 participants; three studies; very low quality evidence). The health-related quality of life was higher in non-surgical treatment between four weeks and three months after treatment (Spitzer Quality of Life Index; MD 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.62; 165 participants; one study; very low quality evidence). The difference between non-surgical and surgical treatments was imprecise for medium-term health-related quality of life (three months to two years after treatment) (Spitzer Quality of Life Index; MD -0.95, 95% CI -2.10 to 0.20; 62 participants; one study; very low quality of evidence). The proportion of people with dysphagia at the last follow-up visit prior to death was higher with definitive chemoradiotherapy compared to surgical treatment (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19; 139 participants; one study; very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, chemoradiotherapy appears to be at least equivalent to surgery in terms of short-term and long-term survival in people with oesophageal cancer (squamous cell carcinoma type) who are fit for surgery and are responsive to induction chemoradiotherapy. However, there is uncertainty in the comparison of definitive chemoradiotherapy versus surgery for oesophageal cancer (adenocarcinoma type) and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of definitive chemoradiotherapy versus surgery. Based on very low quality evidence, the proportion of people with dysphagia at the last follow-up visit prior to death was higher with definitive chemoradiotherapy compared to surgery. Based on very low quality evidence, radiotherapy results in less long-term survival than surgery in people with oesophageal cancer who are fit for surgery. However, there is a risk of bias and random errors in these results, although the risk of bias in the studies included in this systematic review is likely to be lower than in non-randomised studies.Further trials at low risk of bias are necessary. Such trials need to compare endoscopic treatment with surgical treatment in early stage oesophageal cancer (carcinoma in situ and Stage Ia), and definitive chemoradiotherapy with surgical treatments in other stages of oesophageal cancer, and should measure and report patient-oriented outcomes. Early identification of responders to chemoradiotherapy and better second-line treatment for non-responders will also increase the need and acceptability of trials that compare definitive chemoradiotherapy with surgery.

Medical Therapies for Uterine Fibroids - A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are common, often symptomatic and a third of women need repeated time off work. Consequently 25% to 50% of women with fibroids receive surgical treatment, namely myomectomy or hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment as fibroids are hormone dependent and frequently recurrent. Medical treatment aims to control symptoms in order to replace or delay surgery. This may improve the outcome of surgery and prevent recurrence. PURPOSE: To determine whether any medical treatment can be recommended in the treatment of women with fibroids about to undergo surgery and in those for whom surgery is not planned based on currently available evidence. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) of all pharmacological treatments aimed at the treatment of fibroids from a list of references obtained by formal search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index, and ClinicalTrials.gov until December 2013. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data from identified studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-Decision Support Unit guidelines. Odds ratios, rate ratios, or mean differences with 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 75 RCT met the inclusion criteria, 47 of which were included in the network meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence was very low. The network meta-analysis showed differing results for different outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any medical treatment in the management of fibroids. Certain treatments have future promise however further, well designed RCTs are needed.