• International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomized trial.

    30 March 2018

    Endovascular detachable coil treatment is being increasingly used as an alternative to craniotomy and clipping for some ruptured intracranial aneurysms, although the relative benefits of these two approaches have yet to be established. We undertook a randomized, multicenter trial to compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular coiling with standard neurosurgical clipping for such aneurysms judged to be suitable for both treatments. We enrolled 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms and randomly assigned them to neurosurgical clipping (n = 1070) or endovascular treatment by detachable platinum coils (n = 1073). Clinical outcomes were assessed at both 2 months and at 1 year with interim ascertainment of rebleeds and death. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a modified Rankin scale (mRs) score between 3 and 6 (dependency or death) at 1 year. Trial recruitment was stopped by the steering committee after a planned interim analysis. Analysis was per protocol. One hundred and ninety of 801 (23.7%) patients allocated endovascular treatment were dependent or dead at 1 year compared with 243 of 793 (30.6%) of those allocated neurosurgical treatment (P = .0019). The relative and absolute risk reductions in dependency or death after allocation to an endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment were 22.6% (95% CI 8.9-34.2) and 6.9% (2.5-11.3), respectively. The risk of rebleeding from the ruptured aneurysm after 1 year was two per 1276 and zero per 1081 patient-years for patients allocated endovascular and neurosurgical treatment, respectively. In patients with a ruptured intracranial aneurysm, for which endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping are therapeutic options, the outcome in terms of survival free of disability at 1 year is significantly better with endovascular coiling. The data available to date suggest that the long-term risks of further bleeding from the treated aneurysm are low with either therapy, although somewhat more frequent with endovascular coiling.

  • Cochrane cancer network

    30 April 2018

  • Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials: the need for complete data.

    12 December 2017

    If the relative effectiveness of different treatments that might be used in clinical practice is to be evaluated reliably, it is very important that the evaluation is carried out in an appropriate manner. This is especially true where the differences between treatments are expected to be moderate, and so easily obscured by the play of chance or systematic bias. Although such differences are often of considerable clinical importance, they can be difficult to assess and require a large amount of randomized evidence. This evidence can be obtained through prospective randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis of results from past randomized trials, or ideally a combination of the two, with prospective trials contributing to future meta-analyses. Whichever technique is adopted, all possible biases must be minimized through the collection of as much randomized evidence as possible. In meta-analyses, this is best achieved by ensuring that all relevant trials, and all randomized participants in these trials, are included in the analysis. The gold standard for this might be a meta-analysis of individual patient data, in which details for each participant in every trial are collected and analysed centrally. This approach requires considerable time and effort. However, it will add to the analyses that can be performed and will remove many of the problems associated with a reliance on published data alone and some of the problems that can arise from the use of aggregate data. This paper sets out some of the reasons for this and some of the techniques used for individual patient data-based meta-analysis.

  • The Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Library.

    26 April 2018

    The Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane.org) is an international, independent, not-for-profit organization dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of health care readily available worldwide. I review the origins, development, and structure of the organization and describe the important components of its output, The Cochrane Library.