Health Canada recently approved the use of varenicline as a pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Varenicline works by stimulating dopamine, which results in reduced cravings and withdrawal symptoms. The drug also blocks nicotine receptors, which prevents the dopamine release associated with nicotine consumption. 1The drug has been examined in a few small randomized controlled trials.2-5 Despite limited evidence concerning its use, varenicline is viewed by many clinicians and researchers as the most effective smoking cessation aid. Consequently, there is a need for a systematic assessment of the effectiveness of varenicline relative to placebo. Furthermore, there is a need to compare the efficacy of varenicline with that of existing pharmacotherapies, including sustained-release bupropion and approved nicotine replacement therapies.We undertook a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of 7 pharmacotherapies approved for smoking cessation. We had 3 objectives: to summarize the efficacy of each pharmacotherapy; to undertake a direct comparison of varenicline and bupropion by analyzing trials that contained both varenicline and bupropion treatment arms; and to undertake an indirect comparison of all 7 pharmacotherapies using the results of the individual trials.

BackgroundHydrocephalus is a debilitating disorder, affecting all age groups. Evaluation of its global epidemiology is required for healthcare planning and resource allocation.ObjectivesTo define age-specific global prevalence and incidence of hydrocephalus.MethodsPopulation-based studies reporting prevalence of hydrocephalus were identified (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (1985–2017)). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Two authors reviewed abstracts, full text articles and abstracted data. Metanalysis and meta-regressions were used to assess associations between key variables. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Main outcome of interest was hydrocephalus prevalence among pediatric (≤ 18 years), adults (19–64 years), and elderly (≥ 65) patients. Annual hydrocephalus incidence stratified by country income level and folate fortification requirements were obtained (2003–2014) from the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research (ICBDSR).ResultsOf 2,460 abstracts, 52 met review eligibility criteria (aggregate population 171,558,651). Mean hydrocephalus prevalence was 85/100,000 [95% CI 62, 116]. The prevalence was 88/100,000 [95% CI 72, 107] in pediatrics; 11/100,000 [95% CI 5, 25] in adults; and 175/100,000 [95% CI 67, 458] in the elderly. The ICBDSR-based incidence of hydrocephalus diagnosed at birth remained stable over 11 years: 81/100,000 [95% CI 69, 96]. A significantly lower incidence was identified in high-income countries.ConclusionThis systematic review established age-specific global hydrocephalus prevalence. While high-income countries had a lower hydrocephalus incidence according to the ICBDSR registry, folate fortification status was not associated with incidence. Our findings may inform future healthcare resource allocation and study.

Positive clinical change was greatest in patients undergoing fusion for spondylolisthesis while complications and the risk of reoperation limited the benefit of fusion for spinal stenosis. The relative safety and efficacy of fusion for chronic low back pain suggests careful patient selection is required (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number, CRD42015020153).

230Ischemic stroke is the leading cause of permanent disability in the developed world.1 Up to 20% of ischemic strokes result from atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery. 2 Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been shown to be of benefit in the treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis by several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). [3][4][5][6][7] Over the past decade, however, a growing interest has arisen in carotid artery stenting (CAS) as a less invasive means of carotid revascularization.Disparate results have been reported by RCTs investigating the relative efficacy of CAS and CEA. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Three trials were stopped prematurely after their interim analyses revealed an increased risk of stroke following CAS. 13,14,16,23 In contrast, six ABSTRACT: Background: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to update the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, bibliographies of included articles and past systematic reviews, and abstract lists of recent scientific conferences. For each reported outcome, a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I 2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. Results: Twelve RCTs enrolling 6,973 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Carotid artery stenting was associated with a significantly greater odds of periprocedural stroke (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.47) and a significantly lower odds of periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.78) and cranial neuropathy (OR 0.08, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.16). The odds of periprocedural death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.18), target vessel restenosis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), and access-related hematoma were similar following either intervention (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.21). Conclusions: In comparison with CEA, CAS is associated with a greater odds of stroke and a lower odds of myocardial infarction. While the results our meta-analysis support the continued use of CEA as the standard of care in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, CAS is a viable alternative in patients at elevated risk of cardiac complications. Bien que les résultats de notre méta-analyse soient en faveur de continuer à utiliser l'EC comme norme de soins dans le traitement de la sténose carotidienne, la PEV est une alternative valable chez les patients à risque élevé de complications cardiaques.

A single intrathecal injection of 0.2 mg of morphine safely reduces postoperative pain following lumbar fusion.

No abstract

Object Because clinical examination and imaging may be unreliable indicators of intracranial hypertension, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement has been proposed as a noninvasive method of diagnosis. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the correlation between IOP and intracranial pressure (ICP) and the diagnostic accuracy of IOP measurement for detection of intracranial hypertension. Methods The authors searched bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1950 to March 2013, references of included studies, and conference abstracts for studies comparing IOP and invasive ICP measurement. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, and extracted data. Correlation coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird methods and bivariate random effects models. The I2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. Results Among 355 identified citations, 12 studies that enrolled 546 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled correlation coefficient between IOP and ICP was 0.44 (95% CI 0.26–0.63, I2 = 97.7%, p < 0.001). The summary sensitivity and specificity for IOP for diagnosing intracranial hypertension were 81% (95% CI 26%–98%, I2 = 95.2%, p < 0.01) and 95% (95% CI 43%–100%, I2 = 97.7%, p < 0.01), respectively. The summary positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.8 (95% CI 0.5–417.7) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.02–1.7), respectively. When ICP and IOP measurements were taken within 1 hour of another, correlation between the measures improved. Conclusions Although a modest aggregate correlation was found between IOP and ICP, the pooled diagnostic accuracy suggests that IOP measurement may be of clinical utility in the detection of intracranial hypertension. Given the significant heterogeneity between included studies, further investigation is required prior to the adoption of IOP in the evaluation of intracranial hypertension into routine practice.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Carotid revascularization procedures can be complicated by stroke. Additional disability adds to the already high costs of the procedure. To weigh the cost and benefit, we estimated the cost-utility of carotid angioplasty and stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, with special emphasis on scenario analyses that would yield carotid angioplasty and stenting as the cost-effective alternative relative to carotid endarterectomy.