This systematic review and meta-analysis of individual-patient data from randomized trials comparing higher with lower PEEP levels in 2299 patients with acute lung injury showed, overall, no statistically significant difference in hospital mortality.

Featuring @MetaEvidence @sarahjane_mx @HowardNWhiteWebinar by @sarahjane_mx Director of @CampbellUKIRE and Co-chair and Editor of the Campbell Education Coordinating Group: "Registering your #systematicreview title and working with the Campbell editorial team to complete your review" https://youtu.be/2Co6_HsULDk@MAnthonybrowne Sure. Epub 2007 Aug 28.Isacco L, Thivel D, Pelle AM, Zouhal H, Duclos M, Duche P, Boisseau N.Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 Jan 21;11:1-28. doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.S224919. For the outcomes mortality and mechanical ventilation, we used baseline risks from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection COVID-19 database.For each outcome, we classified treatments in groups from the most to the least effective using the minimally contextualised framework, which focuses on the treatment effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence.When a comparison was dominated by a single study (defined as >90% contribution in fixed effects), we conducted our primary analysis with a fixed effects model for that comparison.Patients were involved in the interpretation of results and the generation of parallel recommendations, as part of the After screening 7285 titles and abstracts and 122 full texts, 32 unique randomised controlled trials were identified that evaluated drug treatments as of 20 July 2020 (Several randomised controlled trials were not included in the analysis: two trials that evaluated different durations of the same drug, because both arms would have been classified within the same treatment nodeRandomised trials identified after data analysis, which will be included in the next updateOf the randomised controlled trials included in the analyses, two did not have publicly accessible protocols or registrations.Five studies were initially posted as preprints and subsequently published after peer review.All analyses reached convergence based on trace plots and a Brooks-Gelman-Rubin statistic less than 1.05. We updated the data collected from included studies when they were published as a preprint and as soon as the peer review publication became available in studies initially included as preprints.Outcomes of interest were selected based on importance to patients and were informed by clinical expertise in the systematic review team and in the linked guideline panel responsible for the Because of the inconsistent reporting observed across trials, in the updates we will use a hierarchy for the outcome mechanical ventilation in which we will include information from the total number of patients who received ventilation over a period if available (as done for this analysis), but we will also include the number at the time when most of the patients were mechanically ventilated if that is the only way in which this outcome is reported.For each eligible trial, reviewers, following training and calibration exercises, used a revision of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB 2.0)We conducted the network meta-analysis using a bayesian framework.We summarised the effect of interventions on dichotomous outcomes using the odds ratio and corresponding 95% credible interval. GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a minimally contextualized framework [Submitted for publication]. We therefore decided to include only treatments that enrolled at least 100 patients or had at least 20 events. eCollection 2019 Jun.Rhodewalt R, Saur B, Largent K, Astorino TA, Zenko Z, Schubert MM.Int J Exerc Sci. https://campbellcollaboration.org/blog/confronting-irrationality-why-we-need-to-take-risks-and-put-a-value-on-life.htmlFind out how, and why, we're adding evidence from Campbell #systematicreviews to @Wikipedia in this blog post by Sarah Young @rootsandberries, co-convenor of our Information Retrieval Methods Group. Imagine you are conducting a systematic review on the effect of listening to music while studying on children’s exam performance and you find one study on classical music, two on pop music including primary school children and teenagers respectively, another on death metal and a fifth on 80’s synth classics. Please note: your email address is provided to the journal, which may use this information for marketing purposes.Copyright © 2020 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd     京ICP备15042040号-3, pediatric critical care, infectious diseases physicianLiving cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews?A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysisThe PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanationsLiving systematic review: 1. For time to symptom resolution and length of hospital stay, we first performed the analyses using the relative effect measure ratio of means and corresponding 95% credible interval before calculating the mean difference in days because we expected substantial variation between studies.Treatments were grouped into common nodes based on molecule and not on dose or duration. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002087. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. For some outcomes, the method in which the researchers measured and reported outcomes proved inconsistent across studies, and thus such studies could not be included in the network meta-analyses. Epub 2012 May 18.Scand J Med Sci Sports.

RACS, RB-P, and GHG drafted the manuscript. Data sources US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 20 July 2020.