Loading...
3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Fluoroquinolones are associated with increased risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection: systematic review and meta-analysisPublication . Vouga Ribeiro, Nuno; Melo, Ryan; Guerra, Nuno C.; Nobre, Ângelo; Fernandes, Ricardo M.; Pedro, Luís M; Costa, João; Pinto, Fausto J.; Caldeira, DanielFluoroquinolone use has been associated with collagen disease events, raising safety concerns. We hypothesized that the use of fluoroquinolones is associated with aortic aneurysm (AA) and aortic dissection or aortic rupture (AD/AR). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis on studies published until March 2019. Seven observational studies were included, comprising 2,851,646 participants. The studies were evaluated regarding their risk of bias. Results on fluoroquinolone use risk comparing with nontreatment and with beta-lactam antibiotic use were extracted. The estimates were pooled through a random-effects model meta-analysis and heterogeneity assessed through the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analysis were performed, grouping studies per design and with exclusion of studies with critical risk of bias. Fluoroquinolone use was associated with a higher risk of AA/AD/AR, comparing with a nontreatment intervention (odds ratio = 2.26; 95%CI 1.93-2.65; I2 = 30%) and comparing with a beta-lactam intervention (odds ratio = 1.56; 95%CI 1.37-1.79; I2 = 0%). This harm effect remained significant when pooling the results for the AD/AR outcome only and across various study designs. Studies comparing with beta-lactam intervention were considered to have a moderate risk of bias, while the remaining ones were classified as having at least a serious risk of bias. All evaluated outcomes had very low Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence. Fluoroquinolone use was associated with a significant risk of AA/AD/AR.
- Economic evaluations of medical devices in paediatrics: a systematic review and a quality appraisal of the literaturePublication . Mascarenhas, Edgar; Miguel, Luís Lopes Madureira Silva; Oliveira, Mónica D.; Fernandes, Ricardo M.Background: Although economic evaluations (EEs) have been increasingly applied to medical devices, little discussion has been conducted on how the different health realities of specific populations may impact the application of methods and the ensuing results. This is particularly relevant for pediatric populations, as most EEs on devices are conducted in adults, with specific aspects related to the uniqueness of child health often being overlooked. This study provides a review of the published EEs on devices used in paediatrics, assessing the quality of reporting, and summarising methodological challenges. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify peer-reviewed publications on the economic value of devices used in paediatrics in the form of full EEs (comparing both costs and consequences of two or more devices). After the removal of duplicates, article titles and abstracts were screened. The remaining full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. In-vitro diagnostic devices were not considered in this review. Study descriptive and methodological characteristics were extracted using a structured template. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted followed by a critical discussion on the main challenges found in the literature. Results: 39 full EEs were eligible for review. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (67%) and focused on high-risk therapeutic devices (72%). Studies comprised 25 cost-utility analyses, 13 cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 cost-benefit analysis. Most of the studies considered a lifetime horizon (41%) and a health system perspective (36%). Compliance with the CHEERS 2022 items varied among the studies. Conclusions: Despite the scant body of evidence on EEs focusing on devices in paediatrics results highlight the need to improve the quality of reporting and advance methods that can explicitly incorporate the multiple impacts related to the use of devices with distinct characteristics, as well as consider specific child health realities. The design of innovative participatory approaches and instruments for measuring outcomes meaningful to children and their families should be sought in future research.
- Systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in indexed Portuguese medical journals: time trends and critical appraisalPublication . Prada, Luísa; Prada, Ana; Marques Antunes, Miguel; Fernandes, Ricardo M.; Costa, João; Ferreira, Joaquim J; Caldeira, DanielIntroduction: Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews. Material and methods: This was a methodological study. We aimed the most visible Portuguese medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search (through PUBMED). We included systematic reviews published up to August 2020. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus. Results: Sixty-six systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n = 53; 80.3%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Up to 2010 there was a steady increase in the number of systematic reviews published, followed by a period of great variability of publication, ranging from 1 to 10 in a given year. According to the systematic reviews' typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness/efficacy of health interventions (n = 27; 40.9%). General and Internal Medicine (n = 20; 30.3%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n = 46; 69.7%) were rated as being of "critically low-quality". Conclusions: There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results. Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.