Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer can have several debilitating side effects. Supervised exercise is recommended to ameliorate these negative effects. Objective To systematically evaluate the effect of supervised exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy in patients with prostate cancer undergoing ADT, primarily according to the patient critical outcomes, ‘disease-specific quality of life’ and ‘walking performance’ measured at end of treatment. Methods We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cinahl and Pedro, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which investigated the effect of supervised exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT, last search: June 2021. Two independent reviewers extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE-method. Results Eigthteen RCTs (n = 1477) comprised patients with prostate cancer stages T1-T4 were included in the meta-analyses. Compared to no exercise therapy, supervised exercise therapy showed clinically relevant improvements in ‘disease-specific quality of life’ and ‘walking performance’. The standardised mean differences were 0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29, 0.58) and −0.41 (95% CI: −0.60, −0.22), respectively. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate due to serious risk of bias. Conclusions Evidence of moderate quality shows that supervised exercise therapy probably is superior to no exercise therapy in improving ‘disease-specific quality of life’ and ‘walking performance’ in patients with prostate cancer undergoing ADT. The results apply to all patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy regardless of cancer stage. The results support a strong recommendation for supervised exercise therapy for managing side effects in this population. Protocol registration NKR-38-Focused-questions-PICOs-for-updating1.ashx (sst.dk)

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in combination with conservative treatment is recommended as first-line treatment for patients with fecal incontinence, although its efficacy is unclear. We investigated whether supervised PFMT in combination with conservative treatment is superior to attention-control massage treatment and conservative treatment in adults with fecal incontinence. METHODS:We performed a randomized, controlled, superiority trial of patients with fecal incontinence at a tertiary care center at a public hospital in Denmark. Ninety-eight adults with fecal incontinence were randomly assigned to groups that received supervised PFMT and biofeedback plus conservative treatment or attention-control treatment plus conservative treatment. The primary outcome was rating of symptom changes, after 16 weeks, based on scores from the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale. Secondary outcomes were changes in the Vaizey incontinence score (Vaizey Score), Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. RESULTS:In the intention-to-treat analysis, participants in the PFMT group were significantly more likely to report improvement in incontinence symptoms based on Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale scores (unadjusted odds ratio, 5.16; 95% CI, 2.18-12.19; P [ .0002). The PFMT group had a larger reduction in the mean Vaizey Score (reduction, -1.83 points; 95% CI, -3.57 to -0.08; P [ .04). There were no significant differences in condition-specific quality of life. In the perprotocol analyses, the superiority of PFMT was increased. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:This randomized controlled trial of adults with fecal incontinence provides support for a superior effect of supervised PFMT in combination with conservative treatment compared with attentioncontrol massage treatment and conservative treatment. We found that participants who received supervised PFMT had 5-fold higher odds of reporting improvements in fecal incontinence symptoms and had a larger mean reduction of incontinence severity based on the Vaizey Score compared with attention control massage treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT01705535.

Supervised training compared with no training or self-training in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

Objective To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors. Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events. Results The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusions The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019128391.

The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.

IntroductionFaecal incontinence affects approximately 8–9% of the adult population. The condition is surrounded by taboo; it can have a devastating impact on quality of life and lead to major limitations in daily life. Pelvic floor muscle training in combination with information and fibre supplements is recommended as first-line treatment for faecal incontinence. Despite this, the effect of pelvic floor muscle training for faecal incontinence is unclear. No previous trials have investigated the efficacy of supervised pelvic floor muscle training in combination with conservative treatment and compared this to an attention-control massage treatment including conservative treatment. The aim of this trial is to investigate if 16 weeks of supervised pelvic floor muscle training in combination with conservative treatment is superior to attention-control massage treatment and conservative treatment in patients with faecal incontinence.DesignRandomised, controlled, superiority trial with two parallel arms.Methods100 participants with faecal incontinence will be randomised to either (1) individually supervised pelvic floor muscle training and conservative treatment or (2) attention-control massage treatment and conservative treatment. The primary outcome is participants' rating of symptom changes after 16 weeks of treatment using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Scale. Secondary outcomes are the Vaizey Incontinence Score, the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale, a 14-day bowel diary, anorectal manometry and rectal capacity measurements. Follow-up assessment at 36 months will be conducted.DiscussionThis paper describes and discusses the rationale, the methods and in particular the statistical analysis plan of this trial.

No abstract

No abstract