ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.MethodsA cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.ResultsIn the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.ConclusionsSystematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.

There was evidence of low to moderate quality that minimally invasive treatments, including foam sclerotherapy, laser and radiofrequency therapy are comparable to conventional surgery, regarding effectiveness and safety for treatment of varicose veins.

No abstract

A review of systematic reviews (SRs) and a critical appraisal study was conducted at Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). The objectives of this review are (1) to identify all published SRs comparing the effectiveness and safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenosis, (2) to assess their methodological quality and (3) to compare the primary studies contained in each SR. We included 17 SRs published between 2005 and 2017. None of the SRs fulfilled all items of AMSTAR-2. The overall confidence in the results was graded as critically low for 16 SRs (94%) and low for 1 SR (6%). Five items were judged inadequate in all SRs: reference to a published protocol, explanation to the selection of study design, comprehensive search of the literature, methods for statistical combination of findings and consideration of the risk of bias on the results of meta-analysis. In total, 15 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included at least in one SR. The number of included RCTs in each SR was inconsistent (4 to 15) and was not related to the year of publication of the SR. Our study found redundant and low methodological quality SR comparing CAS versus CEA for carotid stenosis.

CONTEXTO: A variabilidade hemodinâmica da pletismografia a ar é conhecida, mas o exato papel dessa variabilidade no cotidiano clínico não foi investigado, podendo ter algum significado clínico ainda não explorado. Sabe-se que há sobreposição entre as classes clínicas (C0 a C6) da classificação CEAP e mesmo entre membros inferiores de uma mesma classe clínica. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a variabilidade hemodinâmica dos parâmetros da pletismografia a ar nas classes clínicas da classificação CEAP. MÉTODO: Este estudo retrospectivo confronta a doença varicosa de membros inferiores classificada de C0 a C6 pela classificação CEAP com os parâmetros hemodinâmicos venosos obtidos pela pletismografia a ar. Os dados obtidos foram tabulados e analisados em suas classes clínicas pelos testes de variância de Kruskal-Wallys e Barllett. RESULTADOS: Foram realizados 310 exames em 230 pacientes cujas idades variaram entre 19 a 81 anos, com uma média de 46,2 anos. Os parâmetros índice de enchimento venoso e volume venoso funcional mostraram aumento da variabilidade hemodinâmica quando analisados na classe clínica C0 do CEAP, demonstrada por meio do coeficiente de variabilidade que, para o índice de enchimento venoso foi de 28,12% na classe clínica C0 e se manteve acima de 57% nas classes de C2 a C6. A fração de ejeção e a fração de volume residual não aumentaram a variabilidade quando comparados com a classe clínica C0 do CEAP. CONCLUSÃO: O índice de enchimento venoso foi o melhor parâmetro para avaliação e triagem de pacientes com insuficiência venosa crônica, mas tem grande variabilidade nas classes clínicas C2 a C6 do CEAP.