Highlights RT-PCR followed by CT shows high sensitivity for detecting COVID-19. Immunological tests should use a combination of IgG and IgM. The genes E and RdRp present high analytical sensitivity to detect the virus. Assays for molecular diagnosis should employ 2-target systems. Studies of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are of moderate methodological quality.

Systematic reviews and pairwise meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, at the intersection of clinical medicine, epidemiology and statistics, are positioned at the top of evidence-based practice hierarchy. These are important tools to base drugs approval, clinical protocols and guidelines formulation and for decision-making. However, this traditional technique only partially yield information that clinicians, patients and policy-makers need to make informed decisions, since it usually compares only two interventions at the time. In the market, regardless the clinical condition under evaluation, usually many interventions are available and few of them have been studied in head-to-head studies. This scenario precludes conclusions to be drawn from comparisons of all interventions profile (e.g. efficacy and safety). The recent development and introduction of a new technique – usually referred as network meta-analysis, indirect meta-analysis, multiple or mixed treatment comparisons – has allowed the estimation of metrics for all possible comparisons in the same model, simultaneously gathering direct and indirect evidence. Over the last years this statistical tool has matured as technique with models available for all types of raw data, producing different pooled effect measures, using both Frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, with different software packages. However, the conduction, report and interpretation of network meta-analysis still poses multiple challenges that should be carefully considered, especially because this technique inherits all assumptions from pairwise meta-analysis but with increased complexity. Thus, we aim to provide a basic explanation of network meta-analysis conduction, highlighting its risks and benefits for evidence-based practice, including information on statistical methods evolution, assumptions and steps for performing the analysis.

No abstract

BackgroundVitamins are essential micronutrients with antioxidant potential that may provide a complementary treatment for patients with chronic diseases. Our aim was to assess the effect of vitamin supplementation on the antioxidant status and glycemic index of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic review with meta-analyses. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (December 2017). Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of any vitamin or vitamin complex supplementation on antioxidant status as primary outcome were included. The outcomes considered were: reduction of malondialdehyde (MDA); augmentation of glutathione peroxidase (GPx); changes in total antioxidant capacity (TAC), enhance in superoxide dismutase enzyme—SOD, and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). Outcomes of glycemic control were also evaluated. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed using software Review Manager 5.3.ResultsThirty trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, but only 12 could be included in the meta-analyses of antioxidant outcomes. The most commonly studied vitamins were B, C, D and E. Vitamin E was related to significant reduction of blood glucose as well as glycated hemoglobin compared to placebo, while both vitamins C and E were mainly associated with reducing MDA and TBARS and elevating GPx, SOD and TAC, compared to placebo. However, outcome reports in this field are still inconsistent (e.g. because of a lack of standard measures).ConclusionsSupplementation of vitamin E may be a valuable strategy for controlling diabetes complications and enhancing antioxidant capacity. The effects of other micronutrients should be further investigated in larger and well-designed trials to properly place these complementary therapies in clinical practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13098-018-0318-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

High-quality evidence shows that alemtuzumab, natalizumab and ocrelizumab present the highest efficacy among DMTs, and other meta-analyses are required regarding adverse events frequency, to better understand the safety of therapies. Based on efficacy profile, guidelines should consider a three-category classification (i.e. high, intermediate and low efficacy).