Obesity is a major worldwide problem in public health, reaching epidemic proportions in many countries, especially in urbanized regions. Bariatric procedures have been shown to be more effective in the management of morbid obesity, compared to medical treatments in terms of weight loss and its sustainability. The two most commonly performed procedures are laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and the novel laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The MEDLINE database (cutoff date September 2010), LILACS, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the key words "gastric bypass," "sleeve gastrectomy," and "gastric banding." Only studies that compared at least two of the laparoscopic procedures were included. Reviews and meta-analysis, editorial letters or comments, case reports, animal or in vitro studies, comparisons with medical treatment, comparisons with open (non-laparoscopic) procedures were excluded. Most studies indicated that LRYGB and LSG could be more effective achieving weight loss than LAGB. However, LAGB seems to be a safer procedure with frequent, but less severe, long-term complications. Although not uniformly reported, a resolution of obesity-related comorbidities was achieved with most bariatric procedures. The three procedures have acceptable efficacy and safety. We believe that patients should be informed in detail on the advantages and disadvantages of each available procedure, possibly in several interviews and always accompanied by a specialized interdisciplinary team, warranting long-term follow-up.

No abstract

Based on the findings of moderate to high-quality evidence, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse event. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Based on the findings of moderate quality evidence, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse event. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes.

Objective To assess the effects of pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Patients and Methods We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was July 2019. We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available pharmacological interventions. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The primary outcomes were prostatitis symptoms and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were sexual dysfunction, urinary symptoms, quality of life, anxiety and depression. Results We included 99 unique studies in 9119 men with CP/CPPS, with assessments of 16 types of pharmacological interventions. Most of our comparisons included short‐term follow‐up information. The median age of the participants was 38 years. Most studies did not specify their funding sources; 21 studies reported funding from pharmaceutical companies. We found low‐ to very low‐quality evidence that α‐blockers may reduce prostatitis symptoms based on a reduction in National Institutes of Health – Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH‐CPSI) scores of >2 (but <8) with an increased incidence of minor adverse events such as dizziness and hypotension. Moderate‐ to low‐quality evidence indicates that 5α‐reductase inhibitors, antibiotics, anti‐inflammatories, and phytotherapy probably cause a small decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events. Intraprostatic botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection may cause a large reduction in prostatitis symptoms with procedure‐related adverse events (haematuria), but pelvic floor muscle BTA injection may not have the same effects (low‐quality evidence). Allopurinol may also be ineffective for reducing prostatitis symptoms (low‐quality evidence). We assessed a wide range of interventions involving traditional Chinese medicine; low‐quality evidence showed they may reduce prostatitis symptoms without an increased incidence in adverse events. Moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence indicates that the following interventions may be ineffective for the reduction of prostatitis symptoms: anticholinergics, Escherichia coli lysate (OM‐89), pentosan, and pregabalin. Low‐ to very low‐quality evidence indicates that antidepressants and tanezumab may be ineffective for the reduction of prostatitis symptoms. Low‐quality evidence indicates that mepartricin and phosphodiesterase inhibitors may reduce prostatitis symptoms, without an increased incidence in adverse events. Conclusions Based on the findings of low‐ to very low‐quality evidence, this review found that some pharmaco...

Purpose: This evidence mapping aims to describe and assess the quality of available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) on treatments for oral cancer. Materials and methods: We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping. Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos and The Cochrane Library were conducted to identify SRs on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of SRs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool. We organized the results according to identified Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions and presented the evidence mapping in tables and a bubble plot. Results: Fifteen SRs met the eligibility criteria, including 118 individual reports, of which 55.1% were randomized controlled clinical trials. Ten SRs scored "Critically low" methodological quality. We extracted 30 PICOs focusing on interventions such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy; 18 PICOs were for resectable oral cancer, of which 8 were reported as beneficial. There were 12 PICOs for unresectable oral cancer, of which only 2 interventions were reported as beneficial. Conclusion: There is limited available evidence on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of most included SRs scored "Critically low". The main beneficial treatment reported by authors for patients with resectable oral cancer is surgery alone or in combination with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Evidence about the benefits of the treatments for unresectable oral cancer is lacking. These findings highlight the need to address future research focused on new treatments and knowledge gaps in this field, and increased efforts are required to improve the methodology quality and reporting process of SRs on treatments for oral cancer.

The certainty of the evidence for interventions is the certainty or confidence that the true effect is within a particular range or relative to a threshold. In the new pyramid of evidence, systematic reviews represent the magnifying glass through which this certainty is evaluated. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach arises in response to the existence of multiple evidence classification systems, and it offers a transparent and structured process to develop and present summaries of evidence considering its certainty and, in a second step, the strength of the recommendations that they inform. The GRADE process begins with an explicit question that includes all important and critical outcomes explicitly. The main domains used to assess the certainty of the evidence are risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness of evidence, imprecision, and publication bias. The factors that can increase the certainty of the evidence are dose-response gradient, large magnitude of an effect, and effect of plausible residual confounding. Finally, the Summary of Findings tables summarize the process in a simplified way and with controlled language. This narrative review’s purpose is to address the GRADE approach’s theoretical and practical underlying concepts in a simplified way and with practical examples.

We found high-quality evidence showing that prostanoids have no effect on the incidence of total amputations when compared against placebo. Moderate-quality evidence showed small beneficial effects of prostanoids for rest-pain relief and ulcer healing when compared with placebo. Additionally, moderate-quality evidence showed a greater incidence of adverse effects with the use of prostanoids, and low-quality evidence suggests that prostanoids have no effect on cardiovascular mortality when compared with placebo. None of the included studies reported quality of life measurements. The balance between benefits and harms associated with use of prostanoids in patients with critical limb ischaemia with no chance of reconstructive intervention is uncertain; therefore careful assessment of therapeutic alternatives should be considered. Main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were high risk of attrition bias and imprecision of effect estimates.