No abstract

BackgroundOveractive bladder (OAB) affects the lives of millions of people worldwide and antimuscarinics are the pharmacological treatment of choice. Meta-analyses of all currently used antimuscarinics for treating OAB found similar efficacy, making the choice dependent on their adverse event profiles. However, conventional meta-analyses often fail to quantify and compare adverse events across different drugs, dosages, formulations, and routes of administration. In addition, the assessment of the broad variety of adverse events is dissatisfying. Our aim was to compare adverse events of antimuscarinics using a network meta-analytic approach that overcomes shortcomings of conventional analyses.MethodsCochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Trials Register, previous systematic reviews, conference abstracts, book chapters, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing at least one antimuscarinic for treating OAB with placebo or with another antimuscarinic, and adverse events as outcome measures. Two authors independently extracted data. A network meta-analytic approach was applied allowing for joint assessment of all adverse events of all currently used antimuscarinics while fully maintaining randomization.Results69 trials enrolling 26′229 patients were included. Similar overall adverse event profiles were found for darifenacin, fesoterodine, transdermal oxybutynin, propiverine, solifenacin, tolterodine, and trospium chloride but not for oxybutynin orally administered when currently used starting dosages were compared.ConclusionsThe proposed generally applicable transparent network meta-analytic approach summarizes adverse events in an easy to grasp way allowing straightforward benchmarking of antimuscarinics for treating OAB in clinical practice. Most currently used antimuscarinics seem to be equivalent first choice drugs to start the treatment of OAB except for oral oxybutynin dosages of ≥10 mg/d which may have more unfavorable adverse event profiles.

Context: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) emerged as a promising test in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and showed encouraging results.Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combined MRI/MRSI in prostate cancer and to explore risk profiles with highest benefit. Evidence acquisition:The authors searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library, and the authors screened reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language restrictions. The last search was performed in August 2008. Evidence synthesis: We identified 31 test-accuracy studies (1765 patients); 16 studies (17 populations) with a total of 581 patients were suitable for meta-analysis. Nine combined MRI/MRSI studies (10 populations) examining men with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer (297 patients; 1518 specimens) had a pooled sensitivity and specificity on prostate subpart level of 68% (95% CI, 56-78%) and 85% (95% CI, 78-90%), respectively. Compared with patients at high risk for clinically relevant cancer (six studies), sensitivity was lower in low-risk patients (four studies) (58% [46-69%] Financial disclosures: I certify that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None. Conclusions: A limited number of small studies suggest that MRI combined with MRSI could be a rule-in test for low-risk patients. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies and costeffectiveness needs to be established. NIH Public Access