ECRI Institute

About: ECRI Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Health care & Systematic review. The organization has 179 authors who have published 262 publications receiving 10003 citations. The organization is also known as: Emergency Care Research Institute & ECRI.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee

Abstract: Objective To develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA. Methods We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind-body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations. Results Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self-efficacy and self-management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Long‐term opioid management for chronic noncancer pain

Abstract: Background Opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is controversial due to concerns regarding long-term effectiveness and safety, particularly the risk of tolerance, dependence, or abuse. Objectives To assess safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of opioids taken long-term for CNCP. Search methods We searched 10 bibliographic databases up to May 2009. Selection criteria We searched for studies that: collected efficacy data on participants after at least 6 months of treatment; were full-text articles; did not include redundant data; were prospective; enrolled at least 10 participants; reported data of participants who had CNCP. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pre-post case-series studies were included. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted safety and effectiveness data and settled discrepancies by consensus. We used random-effects meta-analysis' to summarize data where appropriate, used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity, and, where appropriate, explored heterogeneity using meta-regression. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. Main results We reviewed 26 studies with 27 treatment groups that enrolled a total of 4893 participants. Twenty five of the studies were case series or uncontrolled long-term trial continuations, the other was an RCT comparing two opioids. Opioids were administered orally (number of study treatments groups [abbreviated as "k"] = 12, n = 3040), transdermally (k = 5, n = 1628), or intrathecally (k = 10, n = 231). Many participants discontinued due to adverse effects (oral: 22.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15.3% to 32.8%]; transdermal: 12.1% [95% CI: 4.9% to 27.0%]; intrathecal: 8.9% [95% CI: 4.0% to 26.1%]); or insufficient pain relief (oral: 10.3% [95% CI: 7.6% to 13.9%]; intrathecal: 7.6% [95% CI: 3.7% to 14.8%]; transdermal: 5.8% [95% CI: 4.2% to 7.9%]). Signs of opioid addiction were reported in 0.27% of participants in the studies that reported that outcome. All three modes of administration were associated with clinically significant reductions in pain, but the amount of pain relief varied among studies. Findings regarding quality of life and functional status were inconclusive due to an insufficient quantity of evidence for oral administration studies and inconclusive statistical findings for transdermal and intrathecal administration studies. Authors' conclusions Many patients discontinue long-term opioid therapy (especially oral opioids) due to adverse events or insufficient pain relief; however, weak evidence suggests that patients who are able to continue opioids long-term experience clinically significant pain relief. Whether quality of life or functioning improves is inconclusive. Many minor adverse events (like nausea and headache) occurred, but serious adverse events, including iatrogenic opioid addiction, were rare.

Obstructive sleep apnea and risk of motor vehicle crash: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: STUDY OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review of the OSA-related risk of crash in commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The primary objective involved determining whether individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are at an increased risk for a motor vehicle crash when compared to comparable individuals who do not have the disorder. A secondary objective involved determining what factors are associated with an increased motor vehicle crash risk among individuals with OSA. DESIGN/SETTING: Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed (PreMEDLINE), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, TRIS, and the Cochrane library) were searched (through May 27, 2009), as well as the reference lists of all obtained articles. We included controlled studies (case-control or cohort) that evaluated crash risk in individuals with OSA. We evaluated the quality of each study and the interplay between the quality, quantity, robustness, and consistency of the body of evidence, and tested for publication bias. Data were extracted by 2 independent analysts. When appropriate, data from different studies were combined in a fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Individuals with OSA are clearly at increased risk for crash. The mean crash-rate ratio associated with OSA is likely to fall within the range of 1.21 to 4.89. Characteristics that may predict crash in drivers with OSA include BMI, apnea plus hypopnea index, oxygen saturation, and possibly daytime sleepiness. CONCLUSIONS: Untreated sleep apnea is a significant contributor to motor vehicle crashes. Language: en

Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions

Abstract: This document updates the existing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews on assessing the risk of bias of individual studies. As with other AHRQ methodological guidance, our intent is to present standards that can be applied consistently across EPCs and topics, promote transparency in processes, and account for methodological changes in the systematic review process. These standards are based on available empirical evidence, theoretical principles, or workgroup consensus: as greater evidence accumulates in this methodological area, our standards will continue to evolve. When possible, our recommended standards offer flexibility to account for the wide range of AHRQ EPC review topics and included study designs.Some EPC reviews may rely on an assessment of high risk of bias to serve as a threshold between included and excluded studies; in addition, EPC reviews use risk-of-bias assessments in grading the strength of the body of evidence. Assessment of risk of bias as unclear, high, medium, or low may also guide other steps in the review process, such as study inclusion for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and interpretation of heterogeneous findings.This guidance document begins by defining terms as appropriate for the EPC program, explores the potential overlap in various constructs used in different steps of the systematic review, and offers recommendations on the inclusion and exclusion of constructs that may apply to multiple steps of the systematic review process. We note that this guidance applies to reviews—such as AHRQ-funded reviews—that separately assess the risk of bias of outcomes from individual studies, the strength of the body of evidence, and applicability of the findings. This guidance applies to comparative effectiveness reviews that require interventions with comparators and systematic reviews that may include noncomparative studies. A key construct, however, is that risk-of-bias assessments judge whether the design and conduct of the study compromised the believability of the link between exposure and outcome. This guidance may not be relevant for reviews that combine evaluations of risk of bias or quality of individual studies with applicability.Later sections of this guidance document provide guidance on the stages involved in assessing risk of bias and design-specific minimum criteria to evaluate risk of bias. We discuss and recommend tools and conclude with guidance on summarizing risk of bias.