Since the initial description of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and its declaration as a worldwide pandemic, the number of publications on the novel virus has increased rapidly. We studied the trends and quality of evidence in early SARS-CoV-2 publications. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed for papers published between 1 January 2020 and 21 April 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts for eligibility in this systematic review. The search yielded 2504 citations published between January and February 2020 or an unspecified date, 109 of which remained for extraction after screening. Data extracted included study design, year of publication, country of basis, journal of publication, impact factor of publishing journal, study sample size, number of citations and topic of investigation. Study design-specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate the scientific rigour of all included papers: the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used for case series, Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles scale for narrative reviews, Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies and AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews. The overall quality of the literature was low-moderate. Of 541 papers that reported clinical characteristics, 295 were commentaries/expert opinions and 36 were case reports. There were no randomised clinical trials, 45 case series studies, 58 narrative reviews, 1 cohort study and 5 systematic reviews. We encourage clinicians to be attentive to these findings when utilising early SARS-CoV-2 evidence in their practices.

No abstract

Background Effective treatments for hematologic malignancies include therapies that target tyrosine kinase (TK) signaling pathways. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is an oncologic emergency that can occur due to rapid turnover following the initiation of treatments for hematologic malignancy. The incidence of TLS is under‐reported and it is unclear as to whether TK inhibitors (TKIs) are associated with TLS. Objective To conduct a systematic review to determine the incidence of TLS with TKIs. Methods A search was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases, as well as a manual search of the American Society of Hematology and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstract databases. Keywords included: “tumor lysis syndrome,” “tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” “lymphoma,” and “leukemia.” Results We identified a total of 57 publications that commented on the incidence of TLS with TKIs for hematologic malignancy. Thirty‐nine of those publications reported TLS as an adverse event. TLS was described as an adverse event among essentially all the subclasses of TKIs that are used to manage hematologic malignancies. Conclusion The overall number of articles commenting on TLS as an adverse event is sparse and there needs to be more transparency regarding the incidence of TLS when employing newer targeted therapies. Physicians should consider the risk of TLS on an individual basis and the added risk of TLS when using TKIs to treat hematologic malignancy.

No abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) have been reported with increasing frequency as a means of collating studies which may have been performed over different period of times, in different geographical areas and by different groups of investigators. As SRs have become more common, quality metrics such as Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) have become available for these reviews. AMSTAR is an 11-point checklist that assesses the methodological and reporting quality of a SR. In clinical practice, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly used for the treatment and prevention of both venous and arterial thromboembolism. We sought to evaluate the quality of SRs published on DOACs using the AMSTAR criteria. A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2013 to February 2019 was performed. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts for eligibility. Data extraction was also completed in duplicate. Categories of extracted data included AMSTAR rating, journal of publication, year of publication, number of studies included in the SR, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of times the paper was cited and journal impact factor. A total of 3729 articles were identified, of which 250 were eligible for analysis. SR quality was highly variable with mean (SD) AMSTAR score of 5.68/11 (2.21). Reporting adherence to PRISMA guideline correlated with a moderate (5–8) or high quality (9–11) (OR=4.19, p<0.01) AMSTAR score. The methodological quality of DOACs was generally rated to be low-moderate, and improved adherence to AMSTAR methodological practices are strongly recommended.