Abstract Background Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common primary systemic vasculitis in people 50 years of age and over, and it is considered a medical emergency due to the potential risk of permanent visual loss. Color Doppler ultrasound (CDU) of the temporal arteries is a rapid, noninvasive method to diagnose GCA. This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the halo sign in temporal arteries by CDU in people with suspected GCA. Methods The systematic literature review included the search for publications in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, gray literature up to December 2022, and no date or language restrictions were applied. We analyzed studies including patients over 50 years of age with suspected GCA evaluating CDU of temporal arteries as a diagnostic tool against clinical diagnosis as a standard reference. Paper titles and abstracts were selected by two investigators independently for all available records. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) and the R software (version 4.2.1) was used for data analysis. The protocol of this review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016033079). Results Twenty-two studies including 2893 participants with suspected GCA who underwent temporal artery CDU were evaluated. The primary analysis results showed a sensitivity of 0.76 [95% confidence interval (95 CI) 0.69–0.81] and specificity of 0.93 (95 CI 0.89–0.95) when the halo sign was compared to clinical diagnosis. The sensitivity value of 0.84 (95 CI 0.72–0.92) and specificity of 0.95 (95 CI 0.88–0.98) were found in five studies involving 1037 participants that analyzed the halo sign and temporal artery compression sign. A sensitivity of 0.86 (95 CI 0.78–0.91) and specificity of 0.95 (95 CI 0.89–0.98) were found in four studies with 603 participants where the halo sign was evaluated CDU on temporal and axillary arteries. Conclusion The detection of the halo sign by CDU of temporal arteries has good accuracy for the diagnosis of cranial GCA. The compression sign in temporal arteries and the addition of axillary arteries assessment improves the diagnostic performance of CDU for GCA. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42016046860.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalization for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis. The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of systematic reviews and clinical trials on women's health recently published in a Brazilian evidence-based health journal. METHOD: All systematic reviews and clinical trials on women's health published in the last five years in the Brazilian Journal of Evidence-based Health were retrieved. Two independent reviewers critically assessed the methodological quality of reviews and trials using AMSTAR and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Table, respectively. RESULTS: Systematic reviews and clinical trials accounted for less than 10% of the 61 original studies on women's health published in the São Paulo Medical Journal over the last five years. All five reviews were considered to be of moderate quality; the worst domains were publication bias and the appropriate use of study quality in formulating conclusions. All three clinical trials were judged to have a high risk of bias. The participant blinding, personnel and outcome assessors and allocation concealment domains had the worst scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the systematic reviews and clinical trials on women's health recently published in a Brazilian evidence-based journal are of low to moderate quality. The quality of these types of studies needs improvement.

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: A utilização de métodos científicos rigorosos tem contribuído para o desenvolvimento de artigos científicos de excelente qualidade metodológica, o que permite a promoção da sua citação, bem como o aumento do fator de impacto. Os periódicos nacionais tiveram que se adequar a alguns padrões de qualidade exigidos pelos indexadores, como por exemplo o conteúdo e o número de artigos originais publicados em cada fascículo. O objetivo foi avaliar a adequação metodológica de dois periódicos brasileiros, na área de cardiologia, indexados em várias bases de dados e disponíveis em livre acesso na Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) e atualmente indexados na Web of Science (Institute for Scientific Information, ISI). TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Estudo descritivo realizado no Centro Cochrane do Brasil. MÉTODO: Todos os artigos foram avaliados quanto ao mérito (conteúdo) e quanto à forma (desempenho). RESULTADO: Foi observada uma taxa de 96% de adequação metodológica entre os artigos avaliados, que apresentaram desenho de estudo adequado para responder o objetivo proposto. CONCLUSÕES: Esses dois periódicos brasileiros na área da cardiologia publicaram artigos metodologicamente adequados, considerando os critérios de qualidade utilizados. Assim, esses periódicos podem ser considerados para consulta e como veículos para a publicação de artigos futuros. Para análises posteriores, é essencial a aplicação de outros indicadores de atividade científica, como a bibliometria, que avalia aspectos quantitativos da produção, disseminação e uso da informação, e a cienciometria, que também considera o desenvolvimento de políticas de ciência, e que muitas vezes se sobrepõe à bibliometria.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The use of rigorous scientific methods has contributed towards developing scientific articles of excellent methodological quality. This has made it possible to promote their citation and increase the impact factor. Brazilian periodicals have had to adapt to certain quality standards demanded by these indexing organizations, such as the content and the number of original articles published in each issue. This study aimed to evaluate the methodological adequacy of two Brazilian periodicals within the field of cardiology that are indexed in several databases and freely accessible through the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and which are now indexed by the Web of Science (Institute for Scientific Information, ISI). DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study at Brazilian Cochrane Center. METHODS: All the published articles were evaluated according to merit assessment (content) and form assessment (performance). RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of the articles analyzed presented study designs that were adequate for answering the objectives. CONCLUSIONS: These two Brazilian periodicals within the field of cardiology published methodologically adequate articles, since they followed the quality standards. Thus, these periodicals can be considered both for consultation and as vehicles for publishing future articles. For further analyses, it is essential to apply other indicators of scientific activity such as bibliometrics, which evaluates quantitative aspects of the production, dissemination and use of information, and scientometrics, which is also concerned with the development of science policies, within which it is often superimposed on bibliometrics.

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Diretrizes são sugestões de condutas clínicas baseadas nas melhores evidências científicas disponíveis. No entanto, muitas vezes, para a construção da diretriz, as revisões sistemáticas existentes são desconsideradas e substituídas por consensos, o que acaba comprometendo a qualidade das suas instruções por serem enviesadas. O objetivo foi verificar a presença das revisões sistemáticas Cochrane nas referências bibliográficas das diretrizes de prevenção e tratamento na odontologia publicados nas bases de dados. LOCAL E TIPO DE ESTUDO: Estudo retrospectivo observacional, conduzido no Centro Cochrane do Brasil. MÉTODOS: Busca das diretrizes foi realizada nas bases de dados. A partir da obtenção delas, foram checadas a existência de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane nas suas referências bibliográficas. Na sua ausência, era verificada se a revisão sistemática não foi incluída porque ainda não existe ou porque, existindo, não foi consultada. RESULTADOS: Foram previamente selecionados 223 estudos, e destes, 77 foram excluídos. Das 146 diretrizes incluídas, 46 poderiam incluir em suas referências as revisões sistemáticas existentes, mas apenas 13 estudos o fizeram, dentre eles somente 8 eram revisões sistemáticas com metodologia Cochrane. Trinta e três diretrizes não usaram para a sua construção as referências de revisões sistemáticas já publicadas e em 100 delas não seria possível a inclusão das referências Cochrane por ainda não existirem as revisões. CONCLUSÕES: É necessária a conscientização da importância do uso das revisões sistemáticas na construção de diretrizes em odontologia, bem como o desenvolvimento de revisões sistemáticas que respondam perguntas que versam sobre os diversos temas ainda não respondidos.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Guidelines are suggestions for clinical practice based on the best available scientific evidence. Nevertheless, in drafting such guidelines, existing systematic reviews are often ignored and are replaced by general consensuses. This ends up compromising the quality of the instructions through bias. Our objective was to investigate whether Cochrane systematic reviews were present among the bibliographic references of prevention and treatment guidelines for dentistry that have been published in databases. DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective, observational study was conducted at the Brazilian Cochrane Center. METHODS: The databases were searched for guidelines. Any guidelines obtained were then checked to find whether Cochrane systematic reviews were present in the bibliographic references of the guidelines. In their absence, we checked whether such reviews had not been included because no reviews existed yet, or because such reviews had not been consulted despite already existing. RESULTS: 223 studies were initially selected; of these, 77 were excluded. Of the 146 guidelines included, 46 could have made reference to existing systematic reviews, but only 13 studies did so. Among these 13 studies, eight were systematic reviews following Cochrane methodology. Thirty-three guidelines had not been drafted using published systematic reviews as references, and 100 guidelines had been unable to use Cochrane references because no reviews existed yet. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to increase awareness of the importance of using systematic reviews in drafting dentistry guidelines. Likewise, it is necessary to develop systematic reviews that answer questions on the various topics that remain unanswered.