Importance Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using theI2statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as “low” for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as “some concerns” in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82];P  Conclusions and Relevance In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

/pdf/association-between-administration-of-systemic-48q08abh36.pdf

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4639420?pdf=render

Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited

The DerSimonian and Laird approach (DL) is widely used for random effects meta-analysis, but this often results in inappropriate type I error rates. The method described by Hartung, Knapp, Sidik and Jonkman (HKSJ) is known to perform better when trials of similar size are combined. However evidence in realistic situations, where one trial might be much larger than the other trials, is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the relative performance of the DL and HKSJ methods when studies of different sizes are combined and to develop a simple method to convert DL results to HKSJ results. We evaluated the performance of the HKSJ versus DL approach in simulated meta-analyses of 2–20 trials with varying sample sizes and between-study heterogeneity, and allowing trials to have various sizes, e.g. 25% of the trials being 10-times larger than the smaller trials. We also compared the number of “positive” (statistically significant at p   = 3 studies of interventions from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The simulations showed that the HKSJ method consistently resulted in more adequate error rates than the DL method. When the significance level was 5%, the HKSJ error rates at most doubled, whereas for DL they could be over 30%. DL, and, far less so, HKSJ had more inflated error rates when the combined studies had unequal sizes and between-study heterogeneity. The empirical data from 689 meta-analyses showed that 25.1% of the significant findings for the DL method were non-significant with the HKSJ method. DL results can be easily converted into HKSJ results. Our simulations showed that the HKSJ method consistently results in more adequate error rates than the DL method, especially when the number of studies is small, and can easily be applied routinely in meta-analyses. Even with the HKSJ method, extra caution is needed when there are = <5 studies of very unequal sizes.

/pdf/the-hartung-knapp-sidik-jonkman-method-for-random-effects-3id8zyiad3.pdf

The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method

Objectives Evaluating the variation in the strength of the effect across studies is a key feature of meta-analyses. This variability is reflected by measures like τ 2 or I 2 , but their clinical interpretation is not straightforward. A prediction interval is less complicated: it presents the expected range of true effects in similar studies. We aimed to show the advantages of having the prediction interval routinely reported in meta-analyses. Design We show how the prediction interval can help understand the uncertainty about whether an intervention works or not. To evaluate the implications of using this interval to interpret the results, we selected the first meta-analysis per intervention review of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issues 2009–2013 with a dichotomous (n=2009) or continuous (n=1254) outcome, and generated 95% prediction intervals for them. Results In 72.4% of 479 statistically significant (random-effects p 2 >0), the 95% prediction interval suggested that the intervention effect could be null or even be in the opposite direction. In 20.3% of those 479 meta-analyses, the prediction interval showed that the effect could be completely opposite to the point estimate of the meta-analysis. We demonstrate also how the prediction interval can be used to calculate the probability that a new trial will show a negative effect and to improve the calculations of the power of a new trial. Conclusions The prediction interval reflects the variation in treatment effects over different settings, including what effect is to be expected in future patients, such as the patients that a clinician is interested to treat. Prediction intervals should be routinely reported to allow more informative inferences in meta-analyses.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/6/7/e010247.full.pdf

Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.

ACOG practice bulletin: Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists

Introduction and hypothesis
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition with multifactorial etiology. The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an overview of literature on risk factors for POP and POP recurrence.

/pdf/risk-factors-for-pelvic-organ-prolapse-and-its-recurrence-a-1hmhy7f562.pdf

Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review.

Small studies are more heterogeneous than large ones: a meta-meta-analysis.

Objective To investigate whether uterus preserving vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy is non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse. Design Multicentre randomised controlled non-blinded non-inferiority trial. Setting 4 non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands. Participants 208 healthy women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery. Interventions Treatment with sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an increase in surgical failure rate of 7%. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) evaluated by the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse at 12 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical recurrences, including recurrent anterior compartment (bladder) and/or posterior compartment (bowel) prolapse, functional outcome, complications, hospital stay, postoperative recovery, and sexual functioning. Results Sacrospinous hysteropexy was non-inferior for anatomical recurrence of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery (n=0, 0%) compared with vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments (n=4, 4.0%, difference −3.9%, 95% confidence interval for difference −8.6% to 0.7%). At 12 months, overall anatomical recurrences, functional outcome, quality of life, complications, hospital stay, measures on postoperative recovery, and sexual functioning did not differ between the two groups. Five serious adverse events were reported during hospital stay. None was considered to be related to the type of surgery. Conclusions Uterus preservation by sacrospinous hysteropexy was non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments for surgical failure of the apical compartment at 12 months’ follow-up. Trial registration trialregister.nl NTR1866.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/351/bmj.h3717.full.pdf

Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.

Joanna IntHout

Papers

The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method

Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.

Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review.

Small studies are more heterogeneous than large ones: a meta-meta-analysis.

Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.