This is the old version of SRDR. The next, SRDRplus is available! Registration of your SRDRPlus account is free and approval is automatic. Click Here to register an SRDRPlus account.

Advanced Search

Completed Systematic Reviews




Prehospital Airway Management: A Systematic Review


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 98 Studies, 4 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Apr 14, 2021 04:26PM
Description: Objective. To assess the comparative benefits and harms across three airway management approaches (bag valve mask [BVM], supraglottic airway [SGA], and endotracheal intubation [ETI]) by emergency medical services in the prehospital setting and how the benefits and harms differ based on patient characteristics, techniques, and devices. Data sources. We searched electronic citation databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus®) from 1990 to September 2020, reference lists, and posted a Federal Register notice request for data. Review methods. Review methods followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program Methods guidance. Using pre-established criteria, studies were selected, dual reviewed, data abstracted, and evaluated for risk of bias. Meta-analyses using profile-likelihood random effects models were conducted when data were available from studies reporting on similar outcomes, with analyses stratified by study design, emergency type, and age. We qualitatively synthesized results when meta-analysis was not indicated. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed for primary outcomes (survival, neurological function, return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], and successful advanced airway insertion [for SGA and ETI only]). Results. We included 99 studies (22 randomized controlled trials and 77 observational studies) involving 630,397 patients. Overall, we found few differences in primary outcomes when airway management approaches were compared. • For survival, there was moderate SOE for findings of no difference for BVM versus ETI in adult and mixed-age cardiac arrest patients. There was low SOE for no difference in these patients for BVM versus SGA and SGA versus ETI. There was low SOE for all three comparisons in pediatric cardiac arrest patients, and in adult trauma patients when BVM was compared with ETI. • For neurological function, there was moderate SOE for no difference for BVM compared with ETI in adults with cardiac arrest. There was low SOE for no difference in pediatric cardiac arrest for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI. In adults with cardiac arrest, neurological function was better for BVM and ETI compared with SGA (both low SOE). • ROSC was only applicable in cardiac arrest. For adults, there was low SOE that ROSC was more frequent with SGA compared with ETI, and no difference for BVM versus SGA or BVM versus ETI. In pediatric patients there was also low SOE of no difference for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI. • For successful advanced airway insertion, low SOE supported better first-pass success with SGA in adult and pediatric cardiac arrest patients and adult patients in studies that mixed emergency types. Low SOE also supported no difference for first-pass success in adult medical patients. For overall success, there was moderate SOE of no difference for adults with cardiac arrest, medical, and mixed emergency types. • While harms were not always measured or reported, moderate SOE supported all available findings. There were no differences in harms for BVM versus SGA or ETI. When SGA was compared with ETI, there were no differences for aspiration, oral/airway trauma, and regurgitation; multiple insertion attempts was better for SGA, and inadequate ventilation was better for ETI. Conclusions. The most common findings, across emergency types and age groups, was of no differences in primary outcomes when prehospital airway management approaches were compared. As most of the included studies were observational, these findings may reflect study design and methodological limitations. Due to the dynamic nature of the prehospital environment, the results are susceptible to indication and survival biases as well as confounding; however, the current evidence does not favor more invasive airway approaches. No conclusion was supported by high SOE for any comparison and patient group. This supports the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials designed to account for the variability and dynamic nature of prehospital airway management to advance and inform clinical practice, emergency medical services education and policy, and improve patient-centered outcomes.
Contributor(s): Nancy Carney, Ph.D. Tamara Cheney, M.D. Annette M. Totten, Ph.D. Rebecca Jungbauer, DrPH Matthew R. Neth, M.D. Chandler Weeks, M.P.H. Cynthia Davis-O'Reilly, B.S. Rochelle Fu, Ph.D. Yun Yu, M.S. Roger Chou, M.D. Mohamud Daya, M.D., M.S.
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: This report is based on research conducted by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center under contract for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA29022015000091)
Methodology Description: Data sources. We searched electronic citation databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus®) from 1990 to September 2020, reference lists, and posted a Federal Register notice request for data. Review methods. Review methods followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program Methods guidance. Using pre-established criteria, studies were selected, dual reviewed, data abstracted, and evaluated for risk of bias. Meta-analyses using profile-likelihood random effects models were conducted when data were available from studies reporting on similar outcomes, with analyses stratified by study design, emergency type, and age. We qualitatively synthesized results when meta-analysis was not indicated. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed for primary outcomes (survival, neurological function, return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], and successful advanced airway insertion [for SGA and ETI only]).

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Flavan-3ols intake and cardiovascular outcomes: Systematic Review


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 160 Studies, 2 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Apr 14, 2021 04:12PM
Description: This proposed evidence mapping project will summarize the data related to Flavan-3-ols and its connection to vascular health outcomes and risk factors.
Contributor(s): Gowri Raman, MD, MS Esther E. Avendano, MS Siyu Chen, MS Jiaqi Wang, MS Bridget Gayer, MS Julia Matson, BS
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America
Methodology Description: This study is a systematic review of published literature evaluating the effects of flavan-3-ol intake on CVD outcomes and risk factors. The review was conducted in 2 phases: a first phase of evidence mapping followed by a full systematic review. A comprehensive search of the scientific literature was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central databases, and the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau from inception through March 9, 2019. We included RCTs and prospective cohort studies conducted in adults (≥ 18 years) that quantified the amount of flavan-3-ols consumed per day or per week. Studies that provided sufficient serving size data were also included, provided that estimation of total flavan-3-ol consumption was possible using the USDA or Phenol Explorer databases. Citations were screened in duplicate using predefined eligibility criteria and any disagreements regarding study inclusion or exclusion were resolved in group meetings. The primary outcomes of interest included CVD clinical outcomes [e.g., CVD mortality, chronic heart disease (CHD), stroke, diabetes, and hypertension]; secondary outcomes included risk factors [serum lipids, blood pressures, glucose metabolism, and flow-mediated dilation (FMD)] and biomarkers [high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP), IL-6, and TNF-α].

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Automated-Entry Patient Generated Health Data for Chronic Conditions: The Evidence on Health Outcomes


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 128 Studies, 50 Key Questions, 10 Extraction Forms,
Date Published: Feb 19, 2021 08:13PM
Description: Technical brief for AHRQ on the evidence for whether PGHD devices and apps improve health outcomes for chronic conditions
Contributor(s): Jonathan R. Treadwell, Ph.D., James T. Reston Ph.D., Benjamin Rouse, M.H.S., Joann Fontanarosa, Ph.D., Neha Patel, M.D., Nikhil K Mull, M.D.
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: AHRQ
Methodology Description: None Provided

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

The effect of IDH inhibitors in AML patients.


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 4 Studies, 2 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Feb 14, 2021 06:29AM
Description: 12% of patients with AML harbor mutation at Isocitrate dehydrogenase enzyme (IDH).Mutations at these enzymes result in high level of R2 hydroxyglutarate which competes with 2-alpha-hydroxygluterate resulted in DNA and histone hypermethylation. DNA and histone hypermethylation inhibits cell differentiation and promotes leukemic transformation. Ivosidenib and Enasidenib are IDH inhibitors that promotes cell differentiation and showed promising activity in phase1 and 2 trials in relapse/refractory AML patients and in elderly patients who are not candidate for traditional induction regimens. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we intend to integrate the results of phase1 and 2 trials that looked at the efficacy and the side effects of IDH inhibitor. Therefore,we will have a clearer picture regarding the efficacy and side effect of these medications.
Contributor(s): Yanal Alnimer, MD Ayman Qasrawi, MD Munthir Mansour, MD
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: N/A
Methodology Description: We will use the ("Metaprop") package in R in order to integrate the results pertaining to the Objective response, Complete remission, and other response outcomes in addition to grade 3 and 4 Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE) in these trials.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Interventions for Drug Use – Supplemental Report: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Entered Retrospectively]


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 91 Studies, 6 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Jan 20, 2021 09:44PM
Description: Background: A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) report found no consistent evidence that counseling interventions are effective at reducing drug use or improving other health outcomes in populations whose drug use was identified through primary care-based screening with questions about drug use or drug-related risks (i.e., “screen-detected populations”). Evidence from studies of persons seeking or referred for treatment for substance use or with clinical signs or symptoms of substance use (i.e., “treatment-seeking populations”) might also be useful for informing assessments regarding screening in primary care settings. Purpose: This report updates a 2008 USPSTF report on screening for illicit drug use and supplements an updated USPSTF report on screening for any drug use, focusing on the benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for persons whose drug use was identified when seeking substance use treatment, when presenting with signs or symptoms of drug use, when screened for drug use in primary care or other settings with questions about drug use or drug-related risks, or other means. Data Sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to September 2018; surveillance for new literature was conducted through November 22, 2019. Study Selection: We included trials of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) and trials of psychosocial interventions for persons engaging in opioid, stimulant, cannabis, and mixed drug or polysubstance use. We also included trials of preemptive prescribing of naloxone in primary care settings as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. Trials compared included interventions against placebo, a minimal intervention, waitlist control, or usual care, and evaluated outcomes at >3 months for drug use or other risky behaviors; health, social, and legal consequences of drug use; or harms of treatment. Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. Data Synthesis (Results): We included a total of 71 trials, with 19 trials of pharmacotherapies and 52 trials of psychosocial interventions. All trials of pharmacotherapies and 25 trials of psychosocial interventions were conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions commonly incorporated cognitive-behavioral or motivational interventions and ranged from brief interventions consisting of one or two sessions of no more than one hour to multiple treatment sessions over weeks or months. In most pharmacotherapy trials, drug use counseling was provided to all patients. No study evaluated benefits or harms of preemptive naloxone prescribed in primary care settings versus placebo or no naloxone as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. In treatment-seeking populations with opioid use disorder, naltrexone (12 trials; relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.85; number needed to treat [NNT] 5.3) and opioid agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine (4 trials; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82; NNT 2.9) were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse compared with placebo or no pharmacotherapy. Naltrexone and methadone/buprenorphine therapy were also associated with increased likelihood of retention in substance use treatment (9 trials; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.49; NNT 6.7 and 7 trials; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.59; NNT 2.6; respectively). Evidence on harms of pharmacotherapies was limited, but indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of abstinence from drug use versus control conditions at 3 to 4 months (15 trials, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.13; NNT 11) and at 6 to 12 months (14 trials; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; NNT 17), based on trials primarily conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions were also associated with a greater decrease versus control conditions in the number of drug use days (19 trials; mean difference -0.49 day in the last 7 days, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.13) and a small but statistically significant greater decrease in drug use severity (16 trials; standard mean difference -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.05) at 3- to 4-month followup. There was no difference between psychosocial interventions versus controls on drug use days or severity at longer (6 to 12 month) followup. Effects of psychosocial interventions were generally stronger in trials of treatment-seeking than screen-detected populations, trials that evaluated cannabis use than other types of drug use, and trials of more intensive than brief interventions. Few trials evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions for opioid or stimulant use, and estimates were imprecise. Limitations: Limitations included restriction to English-language articles, statistical heterogeneity in pooled analyses, and little evidence on drug-related health, social, or legal outcomes; most trials had methodological limitations. Evidence was lacking on effectiveness of treatments for opioid use disorder related to prescription drug use or stimulant use and evidence was limited for adolescents or pregnant persons. Conclusions: Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Although the applicability of data from such trials to persons whose drug use is identified through primary care-based screening is uncertain, intervention trials that enrolled patients based on screening identified a spectrum of drug use, ranging from mild drug use to more severe, untreated disease. The applicability of current evidence on drug use interventions to screening might be greater for the subset of patients screened in primary care settings with severe, untreated drug use who could utilize pharmacotherapies or more intensive psychosocial interventions.
Contributor(s): Roger Chou, MD Tracy Dana, MLS Ian Blazina, MPH Sara Grusing, BA Rongwei Fu, PhD Christina Bougatsos, MPH
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: This report is based on research conducted by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA-290-2015-00007-I, Task Order No. 4)
Methodology Description: Study Selection: We included trials of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) and trials of psychosocial interventions for persons engaging in opioid, stimulant, cannabis, and mixed drug or polysubstance use. We also included trials of preemptive prescribing of naloxone in primary care settings as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. Trials compared included interventions against placebo, a minimal intervention, waitlist control, or usual care, and evaluated outcomes at >3 months for drug use or other risky behaviors; health, social, and legal consequences of drug use; or harms of treatment. Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. Data Synthesis (Results): We included a total of 71 trials, with 19 trials of pharmacotherapies and 52 trials of psychosocial interventions. All trials of pharmacotherapies and 25 trials of psychosocial interventions were conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions commonly incorporated cognitive-behavioral or motivational interventions and ranged from brief interventions consisting of one or two sessions of no more than one hour to multiple treatment sessions over weeks or months. In most pharmacotherapy trials, drug use counseling was provided to all patients. No study evaluated benefits or harms of preemptive naloxone prescribed in primary care settings versus placebo or no naloxone as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. In treatment-seeking populations with opioid use disorder, naltrexone (12 trials; relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.85; number needed to treat [NNT] 5.3) and opioid agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine (4 trials; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82; NNT 2.9) were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse compared with placebo or no pharmacotherapy. Naltrexone and methadone/buprenorphine therapy were also associated with increased likelihood of retention in substance use treatment (9 trials; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.49; NNT 6.7 and 7 trials; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.59; NNT 2.6; respectively). Evidence on harms of pharmacotherapies was limited, but indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of abstinence from drug use versus control conditions at 3 to 4 months (15 trials, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.13; NNT 11) and at 6 to 12 months (14 trials; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; NNT 17), based on trials primarily conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions were also associated with a greater decrease versus control conditions in the number of drug use days (19 trials; mean difference -0.49 day in the last 7 days, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.13) and a small but statistically significant greater decrease in drug use severity (16 trials; standard mean difference -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.05) at 3- to 4-month followup. There was no difference between psychosocial interventions versus controls on drug use days or severity at longer (6 to 12 month) followup. Effects of psychosocial interventions were generally stronger in trials of treatment-seeking than screen-detected populations, trials that evaluated cannabis use than other types of drug use, and trials of more intensive than brief interventions. Few trials evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions for opioid or stimulant use, and estimates were imprecise.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content