ObjectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties of outcome measures currently used in the assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) for clinical research.DesignSystematic reviewData sourcesMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through 4 August 2020.Eligibility criteriaPrimary clinical research published in English and whose primary purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties or clinically important differences of instruments used in DCM.Data extraction and synthesisPsychometric properties and clinically important differences were both extracted from each study, assessed for risk of bias and presented in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria.ResultsTwenty-nine outcome instruments were identified from 52 studies published between 1999 and 2020. They measured neuromuscular function (16 instruments), life impact (five instruments), pain (five instruments) and radiological scoring (five instruments). No instrument had evaluations for all 10 measurement properties and <50% had assessments for all three domains (ie, reliability, validity and responsiveness). There was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Notably, there were no studies that reported on structural validity and no high-quality evidence that discussed content validity. In this context, we identified nine instruments that are interpretable by clinicians: the arm and neck pain scores; the 12-item and 36-item short form health surveys; the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, modified JOA and JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire; the neck disability index; and the visual analogue scale for pain. These include six scores with barriers to application and one score with insufficient criterion and construct validity.ConclusionsThis review aggregates studies evaluating outcome measures used to assess patients with DCM. Overall, there is a need for a set of agreed tools to measure outcomes in DCM. These findings will be used to inform the development of a core measurement set as part of AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

Introduction Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. DCM is common (estimated prevalence, 2% of adults) and significantly impacts quality of life. The AO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research Objectives and Common Data Elements in DCM) project has recently established the top research priorities for DCM. This article examines the extent to which existing research activity aligns with the established research priorities. Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase for “Cervical” AND “Myelopathy” was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Full-text papers in English, exclusively studying DCM, published between January 1, 1995 and August 08, 2020 were considered eligible. Extracted data for each study included authors, journal, year of publication, location, sample size and study design. Each study was then analysed for alignment to the established research priorities. Results In total, 2261 papers with a total of 1,323,979 patients were included. Japan published more papers (625) than any other country. Moreover, 2005 (89%) of 2261 papers were aligned to at least one research priority. The alignment of papers to the different research priorities was unequal, with 1060 papers on the most researched priority alone (#15, predictors of outcome after treatment), but only 64 total papers on the least-researched 10 priorities. The comparative growth of research in the different priorities was also unequal, with some priorities growing and others plateauing over the past 5 years. Discussion Research activity in DCM continues to grow, and the focus of this research remains on surgery. The established research priorities therefore represent a new direction for the field.

IntroductionGlioblastoma is the most common and malignant primary brain tumour with median survival of 14.6 months. Personalised medicine aims to improve survival by targeting individualised patient characteristics. However, a major limitation has been application of targeted therapies in a non-personalised manner without biomarker enrichment. This has risked therapies being discounted without fair and rigorous evaluation. The objective was therefore to synthesise the current evidence on survival efficacy of personalised therapies in glioblastoma.MethodsStudies reporting a survival outcome in human adults with supratentorial glioblastoma were eligible. PRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to 5th May 2022. Clinicaltrials.gov was searched to 25th May 2022. Reference lists were hand-searched. Duplicate title/abstract screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were conducted. A quantitative synthesis is presented.ResultsA total of 102 trials were included: 16 were randomised and 41 studied newly diagnosed patients. Of 5,527 included patients, 59.4% were male and mean age was 53.7 years. More than 20 types of personalised therapy were included: targeted molecular therapies were the most studied (33.3%, 34/102), followed by autologous dendritic cell vaccines (32.4%, 33/102) and autologous tumour vaccines (10.8%, 11/102). There was no consistent evidence for survival efficacy of any personalised therapy.ConclusionPersonalised glioblastoma therapies remain of unproven survival benefit. Evidence is inconsistent with high risk of bias. Nonetheless, encouraging results in some trials provide reason for optimism. Future focus should address target-enriched trials, combination therapies, longitudinal biomarker monitoring and standardised reporting.

Study design Systematic review. Objectives To evaluate the impact of cannabinoids on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of nontraumatic and traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), with the aim of determining suitability for clinical trials involving SCI patients. Methods A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase databases, following registration with PROPSERO (CRD42019149671). Studies evaluating the impact of cannabinoids (agonists or antagonists) on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of nontraumatic and traumatic SCI were included. Data extracted from relevant studies, included sample characteristics, injury model, neurobehavioural outcomes assessed and study results. PRISMA guidelines were followed and the SYRCLE checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Results The search returned 8714 studies, 19 of which met our inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 23 to 390 animals. WIN 55,212-2 (n = 6) and AM 630 (n = 8) were the most used cannabinoid receptor agonist and antagonist respectively. Acute SCI models included traumatic injury (n = 16), ischaemia/reperfusion injury (n = 2), spinal cord cryoinjury (n = 1) and spinal cord ischaemia (n = 1). Assessment tools used assessed locomotor function, pain and anxiety. Cannabinoid receptor agonists resulted in statistically significant improvement in locomotor function in 9 out of 10 studies and pain outcomes in 6 out of 6 studies. Conclusion Modulation of the endo-cannabinoid system has demonstrated significant improvement in both pain and locomotor function in pre-clinical SCI models; however, the risk of bias is unclear in all studies. These results may help to contextualise future translational clinical trials investigating whether cannabinoids can improve pain and locomotor function in SCI patients.

Thank you for taking the time to read and review our systematic review and provide feedback to improve our manuscript. We have addressed the comments raised regarding editing the language to improve readability. The revised version of the manuscript we are submitting incorporates these changes and we hope that you find this satisfactory.