Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A R Jadad

Publications and source records attributed to A R Jadad.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making.

Systematic reviews can be a very useful decision-making tool because they objectively summarize large amounts of information, identify gaps in medical research, and identify beneficial or harmful interventions. Consumers can use systematic reviews to help them make health care decisions. Policymakers can use systematic reviews to help them make decisions about what types of health care to provide. Despite the potential value of systematic reviews, little evidence of their direct impact on the decisions made by consumers and policymakers is available. We discuss strategies for optimizing the use of systematic reviews by increasing the awareness and identification of reviews, learning to critically evaluate the findings of reviews, and overcoming barriers to the incorporation of reviews into the decision-making process. In addition, the participation of consumers and policymakers in the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews can help to produce reviews that are relevant and understandable to target audiences. Because decisions that involve health care policies and issues are complex processes in which information (such as that provided by systematic reviews) plays only a part, strategies for increasing the use of systematic reviews should be evaluated for their usefulness in the decision-making process.

Decision Making↗
PubMed1997

A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews are becoming prominent tools to guide health care decisions. As the number of published systematic reviews increases, it is common to find more than 1 systematic review addressing the same or a very similar therapeutic question. Despite the promise for systematic reviews to resolve conflicting results of primary studies, conflicts among reviews are now emerging. Such conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1997

Quality and retrieval of obstetrical anaesthesia randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are suitable for meta-analysis and systematic reviews provided they are of high quality and are easy to retrieve. We determined these attributes of RCTs in obstetrical anaesthesia in a sample of available journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. SOURCE: Randomized controlled trials published between January 1985 and December 1994 in seven anaesthetic and three obstetric journals were identified by a MEDLINE search, and by handsearch of the same journals. Each RCT was assigned a quality score by a blinded rater using a reliable and validated scaled. The quality of each RCT was described and compared over time and by journal. The comparative yield of MEDLINE and hand-search was evaluated. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three hundred and forty RCTs were retrieved by MEDLINE and handsearch. Two hundred and twenty seven (65%) were identified by the MEDLINE search and 333 by the handsearch (98%). The median quality score was 3/5. There was no difference in score over time. Anesthesiology had the highest median score, Anaesthesia had the lowest (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Care must be taken when reviewing obstetrical anaesthesia research. Strategies in addition to a MEDLINE search must be used to identify RCTs since more than one third were missed using MEDLINE alone. Poor quality RCTs are more likely to be biased in favour of a new treatment. Therefore, to increase the validity of reviews sensitivity analyses based on quality should be done.

Anesthesia, Obstetrical↗
PubMed1996

Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Lately, the number of systematic reviews published has increased substantially. Many systematic reviews exclude trials published in languages other than English. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this action. We looked for differences in the completeness of reporting between trials published in other languages and those published in English, to see whether the exclusion of trials published in other languages is justified. METHODS: We compared completeness of reporting, design characteristics, and analytical approaches of 133 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 1989 and 1994 and 96 published in French, German, Italian, or Spanish during the same time. RCTs were identified by hand searching of journals (seven in English and six in the other languages). FINDINGS: We found no significant differences between trials published in English and other-language trials for any single item in the completeness of reporting scale (randomisation, double-blinding, withdrawals), or for the overall score (percentage of maximum possible score 51.0% for trials in English, 46.2% for trials in other languages; 95% CI for difference -1.1 to 10.5). Other-language trials were more likely than English-language trials to have adult participants, to use two or more interventions, and to compare two or more active treatments without an untreated control group. Trials in other languages were less likely to report a clearly prespecified primary outcome or any rationale for sample size estimation. INTERPRETATION: These results provide evidence for inclusion of all trial reports, irrespective of the language in which they are published, in systematic reviews. Their inclusion is likely to increase precision and may reduce systematic errors. We hope that our findings will prove useful to those developing guidelines and policies for the conduct of reporting of systematic reviews.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed1996

Developing a database of published reports of randomised clinical trials in pain research.

A database of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research published from 1950 to 1990 was created following an extensive literature search. By applying a refined MEDLINE search strategy from 1966 to 1990 and by hand-searching more than 1,000,000 pages of a total of 40 biomedical journals published during the period 1950-1990, more than 8000 RCTs were identified. The RCTs were published in more than 800 journals and over 85% appeared between 1976 and 1990. If the trend of the last 15 years persists, a total of more than 15 000 RCTs will be published in pain relief by the year 2000. A detailed description of methods to ensure efficient use of resources during the identification, retrieval and management of the information in pain relief and other fields is given. Emphasis is made on the importance of refining MEDLINE search strategies, on the use of volunteers to hand-search journals and on careful monitoring of each of the steps of the process. The potential uses of the database to guide clinical and research decisions are discussed.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed1996

Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology.

A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify the maximum possible number of meta-analyses that evaluated analgesic interventions. Seventy-four reports were identified and retrieved and the scientific quality of 80 separate meta-analyses was assessed under blind conditions by 2 judges using Oxman and Guyatt's index. Most of the meta-analyses evaluated pharmacological interventions for chronic pain conditions and two-thirds were published since 1990. Ninety percent of the meta-analyses had methodological flaws that could limit their validity. The main deficiencies were lack of information on methods to retrieve and to assess the validity of primary studies and lack of data on the design of the primary studies. Meta-analyses of low quality produced significantly more positive conclusions. For several topics, different meta-analyses evaluating the same intervention produced conflicting results. The need to resolve these contradictions is highlighted.

Bias↗
PubMed1996

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions.

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials is a relatively new and important development. Three approaches have been developed: component, checklist, and scale assessment. Component approaches evaluate selected aspects of trials, such as masking. Checklists and scales involve lists of items thought to be integral to study quality. Scales, unlike the other methods, provide a summary numeric score of quality, which can be formally incorporated into a systematic review. Most scales to date have not been developed with sufficient rigor, however. Empirical evidence indicates that differences in scale development can lead to important differences in quality assessment. Several methods for including quality scores in systematic reviews have been proposed, but since little empirical evidence supports any given method, results must be interpreted cautiously. Future efforts may be best focused on gathering more empirical evidence to identify trial characteristics directly related to bias in the estimates of intervention effects and on improving the way in which trials are reported.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMed1995

The WHO analgesic ladder for cancer pain management. Stepping up the quality of its evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder as an intervention for cancer pain management. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE from 1982 to 1995, hand search of textbooks and meeting proceedings, reference lists, and direct contact with authors. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any methodological design were included if they evaluated patients with cancer pain treated according to the WHO analgesic ladder and if the studies provided enough information to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved adequate analgesia with the use of the ladder. The strength of the evidence provided by each study was assessed separately by both authors using current concepts. DATA EXTRACTION: From the hard copy of each study report, the first author's name, publication year, study design, number of dropouts per study, and proportion of patients with adequate analgesia in each study were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies purporting to evaluate the effectiveness of the WHO ladder were included in the review. Meta-analysis was not performed because the studies were case series with no control groups. The studies had other limitation: none provided information on the conditions in which pain was assessed; two were retrospective; one had short follow-up periods; three had high withdrawal rates; and one had variable follow-up periods. Analgesia was adequate in 69% to 100% of patients analyzed in the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The studies available provide valuable information on the course of cancer pain and its treatment. However, the evidence they provide is insufficient to estimate confidently the effectiveness of the WHO analgesic ladder for the management of cancer pain. Until results from carefully designed controlled trials are available, it would be inappropriate to judge the performance of clinicians, programs, and institutions or to design policies based on such evidence.

Analgesics↗
PubMed1995

Anticonvulsant drugs for management of pain: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs in management of pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of anticonvulsants for acute, chronic, or cancer pain identified by using Medline, by hand searching, by searching reference lists, and by contacting investigators. SUBJECTS: Between 1966 and February 1994, 37 reports were found; 20 reports, of four anticonvulsants, were eligible. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers needed to treat were calculated for effectiveness, adverse effects, and drug related withdrawal from study. RESULTS: The only placebo controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate. For treating trigeminal neuralgia, carbamazepine had a combined number needed to treat of 2.6 for effectiveness, 3.4 for adverse effects, and 24 for severe effects (withdrawal from study). For treating diabetic neuropathy, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 2.5 for effectiveness, 3.1 for adverse effects, and 20 for severe effects. For migraine prophylaxis, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 1.6 for effectiveness, 2.4 for adverse effects, and 39 for severe effects. Phenytoin had no effect on the irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine had little effect on pain after stroke. Clonazepam was effective in one study for temporomandibular joint dysfunction. No study compared one anticonvulsant with another. CONCLUSIONS: Anticonvulsants were effective for trigeminal neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy and for migraine prophylaxis. Minor adverse effects occurred as often as benefit.

Anticonvulsants↗
PubMed1995

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important and relatively new. Quality gives us an estimate of the likelihood that the results are a valid estimate of the truth. We present an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists developed to assess quality. Twenty-five scales and nine checklists have been developed to assess quality. The checklists are most useful in providing investigators with guidelines as to what information should be included in reporting RCTs. The scales give readers a quantitative index of the likelihood that the reported methodology and results are free of bias. There are several shortcomings with these scales. Future scale development is likely to be most beneficial if questions common to all trials are assessed, if the scale is easy to use, and if it is developed with sufficient rigor.

Bias↗
PubMed1995

Intravenous regional sympathetic blockade for pain relief in reflex sympathetic dystrophy: a systematic review and a randomized, double-blind crossover study.

The first aim was a systematic review of intravenous regional sympathetic blocks (IRSBs) in patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IRSBs in patients with RSD were identified by MEDLINE search (1966 to May 1993) and by hand search of 30 journals (1950 to May 1993). Authors of eligible trials were asked for information on additional trials and for unpublished data. Seven RCTs of IRSBs in RSD were found. Four used guanethidine; none showed significant analgesic effect in IRSBs to relieve pain due to RSD. Two reports, one using ketanserin and one bretylium, with 17 patients in total, showed some advantage of IRSBs over control. RCT results were not combined because of the variety of different drugs and outcome measures and because of methodological deficiencies in most of the reports. The second aim was a randomized, double-blind, crossover study to assess the effectiveness of IRSBs with guanethidine. Patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for RSD and who had reported pain relief after an open IRSB with guanethidine received IRSBs with guanethidine high dose, guanethidine low dose, and normal saline. Pain intensity and relief, adverse effects, mood, duration of analgesia, and global scores were recorded. Sixteen patients with diagnosis of RSD were recruited, but only nine entered the double-blind phase. The trial was stopped prematurely because of the severity of the adverse effects. No significant difference was found between guanethidine and placebo on any of the outcome measures.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Reduction of pain after laparoscopic sterilisation with local bupivacaine: a randomised, parallel, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of applying 10 ml bupivacaine 0.5% versus normal saline to the fallopian tubes under direct vision during day case laparoscopic sterilisation under general anaesthesia. DESIGN: Randomised, parallel, double-blind controlled trial. SETTING: Day Surgery Unit. SUBJECTS: Sixty women presenting for day case laparoscopic sterilisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to first post-operative analgesia, and pain levels at 1 h, at discharge, and at time of first analgesia. RESULTS: In the group receiving bupivacaine, time to first analgesia was significantly longer (P = 0.03) and significantly fewer patients requested escape analgesia before the 1 h assessment (P = 0.01). This group also had significantly less pain on visual analogue scale (P = 0.04) and significantly lower categorical verbal pain scores (P = 0.01) at the 1 h assessment. By the time of discharge, there were no significant differences between the groups. Eight women in the saline group and 15 in the bupivacaine group required no escape analgesia. This difference was not significant. One woman who received saline required to be admitted overnight for severe pain. CONCLUSION: Topical application of bupivacaine to the fallopian tubes during laparoscopic sterilisation is an easy and effective contribution to the management of pain in the immediate post-operative period after day case laparoscopic sterilisation under general anaesthesia.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Incident pain.

Incident pain is a major problem for most patients with cancer pain. It is difficult to classify and poorly studied. The problem is that doses of opioids high enough to control episodic incident pain are too high when that pain is absent, leading to adverse effects. The commonest type of incident pain is pain on movement, leading to a quantitative increase in pain intensity. There is also a class of incident pain that is qualitatively different from any pain at rest, more akin to neuropathic pain. "Breakthrough" pain is the term used to describe pains that break through an existing analgesic regimen; these may be incident pains. There are no randomized controlled trials of incident pain management in cancer pain. The suggestions made for improving management are therefore based on such trials in other pain contexts. Studies in the cancer context will need to concentrate on characterizing the pain episodes.

Analgesics, Opioid↗