Examinando por Materia "Systematic review"
Mostrando 1 - 5 de 5
Resultados por página
Opciones de ordenación
Publicación Acceso abierto Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia Guidelines for Diagnostic Testing: A Systematic Review(Sage Publicaciones, 2013-01-02) Arévalo Rodríguez, Ingrid; Pedraza, Olga L.; Rodríguez, Andrea; Sánchez, Erick; Gich, Ignasi; Solá, Iván; Bonfill, Xavier; Alonso Coello, PabloAlzheimer’s disease dementia (AD dementia) is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases worldwide, with a growing incidence during the last decades. Clinical diagnosis of cognitive impairment and presence of AD biomarkers have become important issues for early and adequate treatment. We performed a systematic literature search and quality appraisal of AD dementia guidelines, published between 2005 and 2011, which contained diagnostic recommendations on AD dementia. We also analyzed diagnostic recommendations related to the use of brief cognitive tests, neuropsychological evaluation, and AD biomarkers. Of the 537 retrieved references, 15 met the selection criteria. We found that Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE)-II domains such as applicability and editorial independence had the lowest scores. The wide variability on assessment of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were the main concerns identified regarding diagnostic testing. Although the appropriate methodology for clinical practice guideline development is well known, the quality of diagnostic AD dementia guidelines can be significantly improved.Publicación Acceso abierto Comments to: A systematic review of pathological findings in COVID-19: a pathophysiological timeline and possible mechanisms of disease progression(Nature Pub. Grupo, 2020-07) Parra Medina, Rafael; Herrera, Sabrina; Mejía, JaimeWe reviewed the excellent systematic article published by Pola et al. [1] about the pathological findings in COVID-19. Based on the 250 COVID-19 autopsies found during our systematic review through March 30, 2020; we concur with the article hypothesis of mechanisms of infection and the tissular injury. However, we would like to highlight two topics that the authors did not discuss. The first, the autopsies findings could support the hypothesis of macrophages hyperactivation. This has already been reported in other coronavirus such as SARS-CoV1 and MERS [2]. In the initial autopsies in COVID-19 patients, the presence of CD68+ macrophages in lung and heart tissues [3, 4] and the presence of CD169+ macrophages in lymph node subcapsular spaces and in splenic marginal zone were reported. These macrophages expressed the SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor ACE2 and contained SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein [5]. Disorders of macrophages as secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH) have been reported in COVID-19 . In autopsies, hemophagocytosis has been observed in lung, lymph node, bone marrow, liver, and spleen . sHLH is a hyperinflammatory syndrome characterized by a fulminant and fatal hypercytokinaemia with multiorgan failure. In adults, sHLH is mostly triggeredby viral infections, autoimmune diseases and neoplasms [11], and occurs in 3.7–4.3% of sepsis cases [12]. The diagnosis of sHLH is based on clinical, laboratory, and morphologic criteria. The main features are: unremitting fever, cytopenias, hepatosplenomegaly, hypertriglyceridemia, hypofibrinogenemia, and hyperferritinemia. Severe COVID-19 could be considered a hyperferritinemic syndrome by the clinical similarities detected . In these conditions, Ferritin plays a critical role in the immune response. The production and secretion of extracellular ferritin is derived from macrophages.Publicación Acceso abierto Diagnostic tools for alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias: an overview of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews(BioMed Central Ltd .Part of Springer Nature, 2014-09-24) Arévalo-Rodríguez, Ingrid; Segura, Omar; Solà, Iván; Bonfill, Xavier; Sánchez, Erick; Alonso-Coello, PabloBackground: Dementia includes a group of neurodegenerative disorders characterized by progressive loss of cognitive function and a decrease in the ability to perform activities of daily living. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) focus on how well the index test detects patients with the disease in terms of figures such as sensitivity and specificity. Although DTA reviews about dementia are essential, at present there is no information about their quantity and quality. Methods: We searched for DTA reviews in MEDLINE (1966–2013), EMBASE (1980–2013), The Cochrane Library (from its inception until December 2013) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR measurement tool, and the quality of the reporting using the PRISMA checklist. We describe the main characteristics of these reviews, including basic characteristics, type of dementia, and diagnostic test evaluated, and we summarize the AMSTAR and PRISMA scores. Results: We selected 24 DTA systematic reviews. Only 10 reviews (41.6%), assessed the bias of included studies and few (33%) used this information to report the review results or to develop their conclusions Only one review (4%) reported all methodological items suggested by the PRISMA tool. Assessing methodology quality by means of the AMSTAR tool, we found that six DTA reviews (25%) pooled primary data with the aid of methods that are used for intervention reviews, such as Mantel-Haenszel and separate random-effects models (25%), while five reviews (20.8%) assessed publication bias by means of funnel plots and/or Egger’s Test. Conclusions: Our assessment of these DTA reviews reveals that their quality, both in terms of methodology and reporting, is far from optimal. Assessing the quality of diagnostic evidence is fundamental to determining the validity of the operating characteristics of the index test and its usefulness in specific settings. The development of high quality DTA systematic reviews about dementia continues to be a challengePublicación Acceso abierto Quality assessment of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals in Spanish: An observational study through handsearching and evidence mapping(Publicaciones SAGE, 2018-08) Arévalo Rodríguez, Ingrid; Muñoz, Edgar; Buitrago García, Diana; Núñez González, Solange; Montero Oleas, Nadia; Garzón, Vanessa; Pardo Hernández, Héctor; Bonfill, XavierFew Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain are indexed in major databases; controlled clinical trials published in these journals cannot be exhaustively retrieved using electronic literature searches. We aimed to identify, describe and assess the quality of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain through handsearching and evidence mapping methods. We identified controlled clinical trials published in eligible Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals in Spanish until July 2017 by handsearching. Data were extracted for controlled clinical trials main characteristics and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the controlled clinical trials methodological quality. In addition, we mapped the main findings of these trials. As a result, we assessed 5631 references in 29 eligible journals of which 57 were controlled clinical trials (1.0%). Controlled clinical trials were published between 1995 and 2017 at a rate of 2.5 per year. Journals from Spain and Mexico published around 63% of the controlled clinical trials identified. The median sample size of patients enrolled was 60 (range=30–300 participants). About conditions assessed, 38.5% of controlled clinical trials assessed issues related to knee conditions, 15.7% about hip and 10.5% about trauma or spine. The risk of bias domains most affected was selective reporting bias and random sequence generation. In addition, only two and seven trials had low risk of bias in all items related to participant/personnel and outcome assessment blindings, respectively. More than 40% of studies did not report differences on benefits/harms between the interventions assessed. As a conclusion, the number of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain is low. These controlled clinical trials had important methodological shortcomings and were judged as unclear or high risk of bias. These trials are now available in CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews and other documents of synthesis.Ítem Acceso abierto Tratamiento de primera línea para pacientes con mieloma múltiple no elegibles para trasplante autólogo de células progenitoras : revisión sistemática y meta-análisis (estudio del hemo-oncolgroup).(Asociación Colombiana de Hematología y Oncología, 2012) Rodríguez, Myriam; Combariza, Juan Felipe; Casas, Claudia Patricia; Reveiz, Ludovic; Buendía, Jefferson; Martí Carvajal, Arturo; Becerra, Henry; Acevedo, Andrés; Cardona, Andrés FelipeAntecedentes: Los pacientes con mieloma múltiple (MM) que no son elegibles para Trasplante de Médula Ósea han sido tratados con melfalán (M) más prednisona (P); sin embargo, el estándar de tratamiento ha cambiado a MP mas talidomida (T) debido a un beneficio en supervivencia. Bortezomib (B) y lenalidomida también han surgido como tratamientos efectivos. Métodos: Se identificaron los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados y controlados (RCT) obtenidos en la Librería Cochrane, PUBMED, LILACS, EMBASE y Scirus. Sólo se consideraron los estudios que compararon melfalán-prednisolona (MP) con cualquier otro régimen. Resultados: Se analizaron 22 RCTs, de 2.159 referencias. MP vs. M mas dexametasona (MD): 3 RCT. No hubo diferencias respecto de la supervivencia global (SG), la tasa de respuesta completa (TRC) y la toxicidad hematológica. MD fue superior en respuesta parcial (RR 1.54;1.32-1.80) y toxicidad no hematológica RR 2.15;1.36-3.41. MP vs. regímenes basados en talidomida: 4 RCT. Se encontraron diferencias a favor de la talidomida respecto de la TRC RR 3.44;1.86-6.39 y respuesta parcial (RP) RR 1.67;1.28-2.17. La supervivencia libre de progresión (SLP) fue superior con talidomida (p = 0.02). MP vs. regímenes basados en bortezomib: 1 RCT. Se encontraron diferencias significativas a favor de bortezomib en SG HR 0.61;0.42-0.89, tiempo a la progresión HR 0.48;0.41-0.56, TRC RR 8.35;4.68-14.89 y RP RR 1.30;1.06-1.59. MP vs. quimioterapia sin M: 3 RCT. Los esquemas con bendamustina lograron una mayor respuesta completa RR 2.55;1.22-5.30. MP vs. otros: 13 RCT. No se encontraron diferencias en la RP, SG ni en los efectos adversos. Conclusiones: Los pacientes sintomáticos con MM no elegibles para trasplante de médula ósea deben recibir como primera línea una combinación de MP con bortezomib o talidomida. Se necesitan más estudios que permitan determinar el beneficio terapéutico basado en el fenotipo y la citogenética.