Antiphospholipid syndrome – Cochrane reviews in primary and secondary prevention vs. non-Cochrane reviews and practice guidelines on similar topics

ID: 

2083

Session: 

Poster session 2 Thursday: Evidence synthesis - methods / improving conduct and reporting

Date: 

Thursday 14 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00

Location: 

Exhibition Halls 1 & 2

All authors in correct order:

Bala MM1, Kaczmarczyk M2, Swierz M3, Celinska-Lowenhoff M4, Szot W5, Padjas A4, Paszek E6, Lesniak W4, Wloch-Kopec D7, Jasinska K8, Undas A9
1 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Systematic Reviews Unit-Polish Cochrane Branch; Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Poland
2 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Students' Research Group For Systematic Reviews, Poland
3 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Students" Research Group For Systematic Reviews, Poland
4 Jagiellonian University Medical College, II Department of Internal Medicine, Poland
5 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Poland
6 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Department of Interventional Cardiology, Poland
7 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Neurology Department, Poland
8 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Students' Research Group for Systematic Reviews, Poland
9 Jagiellonian University Medical College, Institute of Cardiology, Poland
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Malgorzata Bala

Contact person:

Malgorzata Bala
Abstract text
Background: We have been working on 2 Cochrane reviews on primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis in patients with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies and patients with diagnosed antiphospholipid syndrome, respectively.

Objectives: To compare methods and outputs of our 2 Cochrane reviews and other non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) and SR done within the framework of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) published on similar topics since 2010.

Methods: We have registered both Cochrane reviews in the appropriate Cochrane group (Stroke and Vascular Group). For the secondary-prevention review we included for comparison all SR and CPG which contained SR within their framework, which came up with our search. For the primary-prevention review we have run additional searches for SR/PCG.

Results: For the secondary prevention review we have identified 8 articles – 1 meta-analysis(MA), 2 SR and 6 evidence-based CPG. In Cochrane review our comprehensive search strategy delivered 6 included studies, 2 studies pending classification and 5 ongoing trials. In 3 non-Cochrane review/CPG information about searched sources was not provided and in 5 articles covering of 1 to 8 databases was reported. Identified non-Cochrane MA/SR/CPG included from 1 to 3 studies out of those listed in our review. In 5 of them the question was more focused than in our review or one of the studies was not available at that time, for 3 CPG the search was limited or unclear and the number of studies identified was lower than in our review.
The primary prevention review is still ongoing, the results of the comparison will be presented at the Summit.

Conclusions: A comprehensive search without language restriction, diligent tracking of conference abstracts and maintaining a specialised registry by the Cochrane group, as well as comprehensive search of ongoing trial registries allowed us to identify more studies on the management of antiphospholipid syndrome than previous reviews and CPG. Therefore, evidence from our Cochrane reviews can become basis for future guideline updates.