Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine最新文献

Objective: The effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality and all-cause mortality remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis to determine the effects of HRT on CRC mortality and all-cause mortality.

Methods: We searched the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for all relevant studies published until January 2024 to investigate the effects of HRT exposure on survival rates for patients with CRC. Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated the risk of bias between the studies using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale. We performed a two-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis to examine a possible nonlinear relationship between the year of HRT use and CRC mortality.

Results: Ten cohort studies with 480,628 individuals were included. HRT was inversely associated with the risk of CRC mortality (hazard ratios (HR) = 0.77, 95% CI (0.68, 0.87), I² = 69.5%, p < 0.05). The pooled results of seven cohort studies revealed a significant association between HRT and the risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.54, 0.92), I² = 89.6%, p < 0.05). A linear dose-response analysis (p for nonlinearity = 0.34) showed a 3% decrease in the risk of CRC for each additional year of HRT use; this decrease was significant (HR = 0.97, 95% CI (0.94, 0.99), p < 0.05). An additional linear (p for nonlinearity = 0.88) dose-response analysis showed a nonsignificant decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality for each additional year of HRT use.

Conclusions: This study suggests that the use of HRT is inversely associated with all-cause and colorectal cancer mortality, thus causing a significant decrease in mortality rates over time. More studies are warranted to confirm this association.

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as "rapid review" "rapid assessment" "rapid systematic review" and "rapid evaluation". We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English-language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

Background: The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 30 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. However, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear. To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize the aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports.

Methods: In this scoping review, we systematically searched for biomedical literature reports from 1993 to 2023 in two databases, focusing on those addressing and defining research waste. Through data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste.

Results: Based on 4285 initial records in the searches, a total of 832 reports were included in the analysis. The included reports were primarily narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into five aspects: methodological, invisible, negligible, underreported, and structural (MINUS) research waste. More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data-sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, for example, stemming from the absence of preceding a trial with a systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting, resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination.

Conclusion: MINUS encapsulates the five main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste and thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic and relapsing immune-mediated disease of the gastrointestinal tract with a gradually increasing global incidence and prevalence. A prolonged course of IBD leads to a decline in patient quality of life and the creation of a substantial economic burden on society. Owing to the lack of specific diagnostic markers, the diagnosis of IBD still needs a gold standard based on a combination of clinical manifestations, imaging, laboratory, and endoscopic results. Accordingly, the current goals of IBD treatment are to alleviate clinical symptoms and reduce recurrence rates. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a standard set of procedures to diagnose and treat IBD. In this review, we summarize prominent and emerging studies, outline classical and contemporary approaches to diagnosing and managing IBD, and integrate multiple guidelines. Furthermore, we propose the possibility of establishing an early and comprehensive diagnostic workflow and personalized management strategy in the future. We aim to enhance the quality and standardization of diagnostic and treatment procedures for IBD.

Background: The objective of the current study was to evaluate whether the use of traditional Chinese medicine, Fuzheng Yiqing granule (FZYQG), was associated with a reduced infection risk of COVID-19 in close contacts.

Research design and methods: This was a prospective cohort study across 203 quarantine centres for close contacts and secondary contacts of COVID-19 patients in Yangzhou city. FZYQG group was defined as quarantined individuals who voluntarily took FZYQG; control group did not take FZYQG. The primary outcome was the coronavirus test positive rate during quarantine period. Logistic regression with propensity score inverse probability weighting was used for adjusted analysis to evaluate independent association between FZYQG and test positive rate.

Results: From July 13, 2021 to September 30, 2021, 3438 quarantined individuals took FZYQG and 2248 refused to take the granule. Test positive rate was significantly lower among quarantined individuals who took FZYQG (0.29% vs. 1.73%, risk ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.34, p < 0.001). On logistic regression, odds for test positive were decreased in FZYQG group (odds ratio: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08-0.32, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Close and secondary contacts of COVID-19 patients who received FZYQG had a lower test positive rate than control individuals in real-world experience.

Trial registration: This study has been registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100049590) on August 5, 2021.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the fixed-ratio combination (FRC) and free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 13, 2023. Phase III clinical trials involving FRC or free combination in patients with uncontrolled T2DM were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to evaluate the effects of FRC and free combination. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to evaluate the risk-of-bias. The primary outcomes were changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, and incident hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023409585).

Results: Forty-two trials with 23,619 patients were included in the NMA, and treatments were categorized as FRC, free combination and NOINSGLP (neither FRC nor free combination). The forest plots revealed comparable HbA1c control (mean difference (MD) = 0.07%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.17 to -0.30) between free combination and FRC. However, there were significant differences in the body weight (MD = -2.06 kg; 95% CI: -3.34 to -0.77), SBP (MD = -1.22 mmHg; 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.04), and DBP (MD = -1.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.94 to -0.24) between the two groups.

Conclusions: In patients with uncontrolled T2DM, the safety and efficacy of FRC and free combination therapy were comparable. The use of FRC is justifiable in patients requiring free combination.

Objective: Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) has been recommended as first-line therapy for early-stage mycosis fungoides (MF) in international guidelines. NB-UVB can be used as monotherapy or part of a multimodality treatment regimen. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness and optimal patients of NB-UVB in combination with systemic therapies in MF. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the combination versus NB-UVB monotherapy in early-stage MF and if plaque lesion status was related to these effects.

Methods: This observational cohort study included 247 early-stage MF patients who had received NB-UVB combined with systemic therapies vs. NB-UVB monotherapy from 2009 to 2021. The primary outcome was partial or complete response. Overall response rate and median time to response were calculated. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using the Cox model.

Results: In 139 plaque-stage patients, the response rate for combination therapy group was higher than that of monotherapy group (79.0% vs. 54.3%, p = 0.006). The adjusted HR for combination therapy compared with NB-UVB monotherapy was 3.11 (95% CI 1.72-5.63). The combination therapy group also showed shorter time to response (4 vs. 6 months, p = 0.002). In 108 patch-stage patients, the response rate and time to response in two treatment groups showed no significant difference. There was therefore an observed interaction with patients' plaque lesion status for the effect size of NB-UVB combination therapy. No serious adverse events were observed.

Conclusions: Adding systemic treatments to NB-UVB did not improve the treatment outcome of patch-stage patients, but it surpassed NB-UVB monotherapy for early-stage patients with plaques.