Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews
Ioannidis, J.; Saraswathula, A.; Rameau, A.; Schuit, E.; Zavalis, E. A.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTo examine the prevalence of comparisons of surgery to drug regimens, the strength of evidence of such comparisons, and whether surgery or the drug intervention was favored. DesignSystematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review) Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Eligibility criteria and synthesis of resultsUsing the search term "surg*" in CDSR, we retrieved systematic reviews of surgical interventions. Abstracts were subsequently screened to find systematic reviews that aimed to compare surgical to drug interventions; and then, among them, those that included any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for such comparisons. Trial results data were extracted manually and synthesized into random-effects meta-analyses. ResultsOverall, 188 systematic reviews intended to compare surgery versus drugs. Only 41 included data from at least one RCT (total, 165 RCTs with data) and covered a total of 103 different outcomes of various comparisons of surgery versus drugs. A GRADE assessment was performed by the Cochrane reviewers for 87 (83%) outcomes in the reviews, indicating the strength of evidence was high in 4 outcomes (4%), moderate in 22 (21%), low in 27 (26%) and very low in 33 (32%). Based on 95% confidence intervals, the surgical intervention was favored in 38/103 (37%), and the drugs were favored in 13/103 (13%) outcomes. Of the outcomes with high GRADE rating, only one showed conclusive superiority (sphincterotomy was better than medical therapy for anal fissure). Of the 22 outcomes with moderate GRADE rating, 6 (27%) were inconclusive, 14 (64%) were in favor of surgery, and 2 (9%) were in favor of drugs. ConclusionsThough the relative merits of surgical versus drug interventions are important to know for many diseases, high strength randomized evidence is rare. More randomized trials comparing surgery to drug interventions are needed. Protocol registrationhttps://osf.io/p9x3j FundingThe work of John Ioannidis has been funded by an unrestricted gift from Sue and Bob ODonnell. Anais Rameau is supported by a Paul B. Beeson Emerging Leaders Career Development Award in Aging (K76 AG079040) from the National Institute on Aging and by the Bridge2AI award (OT2 OD032720) from the NIH Common Fund. Anirudh Saraswathula is supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders training grant 2T32DC000027. Financial disclosureAnais Rameau is a medical advisor for Perceptron Health, Inc. Summary boxes Section 1: What is already known on this topicO_LIMany conditions and diseases can be managed either with surgery or with drugs. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment options is important to know for shared decision-making. C_LI Section 2: What this study addsO_LIAn assessment of the entire Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found 188 reviews that intended to assess surgical versus drug interventions, but only 41 had at least one randomized trial. C_LIO_LIOnly four of the 103 assessed outcomes had high strength of evidence according to GRADE assessments. C_LIO_LIMore evidence is needed to compare the relative merits of surgical and drug interventions and sequestration of these major modes of interventions should be overcome in clinical trial agendas. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Perioperative mortality in low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Protocol for a multi-level meta-regression analysis 96%
- Wound Complications Following Surgery to the Lymph Nodes: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 95%
- Costs and models used in the economic analysis of Total Knee Replacement (TKR): A Systematic Review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anaemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review 91%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 90%
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 94%
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 94%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.