Despite being an expensive test format, evidence suggests that the use of OSCE produces reliable results. The study also suggests that one reason for the wide-scale adoption of the OSCE and the feasibility of its use in different contexts and situations is its inherent flexibility in terms of the number of students that can be assessed, the number of examiners included, the type of patients represented and the format of the examination itself, including the length of the examination, the number and duration of stations.

SUMMARYPurpose: Evaluate the clinical comparability of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in partial refractory epilepsy. Methods: Systematic review of randomized trials (RCTs) comparing a new AED (add-on treatment) with placebo or another AED. Primary outcomes: responder ( ‡50% seizure reduction) and withdrawal (tolerability) rates. Pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and number needed treat/harm (NNT/NNH) taking into account baseline risk were derived by random-effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between AEDs were estimated. Key Findings: Sixty-two placebo-controlled (12,902 patients) and eight head-to-head RCTs (1,370 patients) were included. Pooled ORs for responder and withdrawal rates (vs. placebo) were 3.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.63-3.41] and 1.48 (1.30-1.68), respectively. Indirect comparisons of responder rate based on relative measurements of treatment effect (ORs) favored topiramate (1.52; 1.06-2.20) in comparison to all other AEDs, whereas gabapentin (0.67; 0.46-0.97) and lacosamide (0.66; 0.48-0.92) were less efficacious, without significant heterogeneity. When analyses were based on absolute estimates (NNTs), topiramate and levetiracetam were more efficacious, whereas gabapentin and tiagabine were less efficacious. Withdrawal rate was higher with oxcarbazepine (OR 1.60; 1.12-2.29) and topiramate (OR 1.68; 1.07-2.63), and lower with gabapentin (OR 0.65; 0.42-1.00) and levetiracetam (OR 0.62; 0.43-0.89). Significance: The differences found are of relatively small magnitude to allow a definitive conclusion about which new AED(s) has superior effectiveness. This uncertainty probably reflects the limitations of conclusions based on indirect evidence. The process of pharmacologic clinical decision making in partial refractory epilepsy probably depends more on other aspects, such as individual patient characteristics and pharmacoeconomics, than on available controlled randomized evidence.

BackgroundChronic musculoskeletal pain is a prevalent condition and a major cause of disability and absence from the workplace worldwide. Opioids are frequently used to treat chronic pain, although adverse e ects o en restrict their long-term benefits. Tapentadol is an opioid and noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor, which may cause a lower incidence (and severity) of adverse e ects compared to other strong opioids. ObjectivesTo determine the e icacy, safety, and tolerability of tapentadol extended-release for moderate-to-severe pain for at least three months for any musculoskeletal cause. Search methodsWe searched electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) to March 2014, unrestricted by language, as well as trials registers and reference lists from retrieved studies. We contacted drug manufacturers for further information.