Rationale: Ventilation in the prone position for about 7 h/d in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury, or acute respiratory failure does not decrease mortality. Whether it is beneficial to administer prone ventilation early, and for longer periods of time, is unknown. Methods: We enrolled 136 patients within 48 h of tracheal intubation for severe ARDS, 60 randomized to supine and 76 to prone ventilation. Guidelines were established for ventilator settings and weaning. The prone group was targeted to receive continuous prone ventilation treatment for 20 h/d. Results: The intensive care unit mortality was 58% (35/60) in the patients ventilated supine and 43% (33/76) in the patients ventilated prone (p = 0.12). The latter had a higher simplified acute physiology score II at inclusion. Multivariate analysis showed that simplified acute physiology score II at inclusion (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; p < 0.001), number of days elapsed between ARDS diagnosis and inclusion (OR, 2.83; p < 0.001), and randomization to supine position (OR, 2.53; p = 0.03) were independent risk factors for mortality. A total of 718 turning procedures were done, and prone position was applied for a mean of 17 h/d for a mean of 10 d. A total of 28 complications were reported, and most were rapidly reversible. Conclusion: Prone ventilation is feasible and safe, and may reduce mortality in patients with severe ARDS when it is initiated early and applied for most of the day.

Objective To summarize short term outcomes in randomized controlled trials comparing glibenclamide or metformin versus insulin or versus each other in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomized controlled trials that fulfilled all the following: (1) published as full text; (2) addressed women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment; (3) compared glibenclamide v insulin, metformin v insulin, or metformin v glibenclamide; and (4) provided information on maternal or fetal outcomes. Data sources Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched up to 20 May 2014. Outcomes measures We considered 14 primary outcomes (6 maternal, 8 fetal) and 16 secondary (5 maternal, 11 fetal) outcomes. Results We analyzed 15 articles, including 2509 subjects. Significant differences for primary outcomes in glibenclamide v insulin were obtained in birth weight (mean difference 109 g (95% confidence interval 35.9 to 181)), macrosomia (risk ratio 2.62 (1.35 to 5.08)), and neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 2.04 (1.30 to 3.20)). In metformin v insulin, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference −1.14 kg (−2.22 to −0.06)), gestational age at delivery (mean difference −0.16 weeks (−0.30 to −0.02)), and preterm birth (risk ratio 1.50 (1.04 to 2.16)), with a trend for neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 0.78 (0.60 to 1.01)). In metformin v glibenclamide, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference −2.06 kg (−3.98 to −0.14)), birth weight (mean difference −209 g (−314 to −104)), macrosomia (risk ratio 0.33 (0.13 to 0.81)), and large for gestational age newborn (risk ratio 0.44 (0.21 to 0.92)). Four secondary outcomes were better for metformin in metformin v insulin, and one was worse for metformin in metformin v glibenclamide. Treatment failure was higher with metformin than with glibenclamide. Conclusions At short term, in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment, glibenclamide is clearly inferior to both insulin and metformin, while metformin (plus insulin when required) performs slightly better than insulin. According to these results, glibenclamide should not be used for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes if insulin or metformin is available. Systematic review registration NCT01998113

Despite the increasing number of manuals on how to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) there remain concerns about their quality. The aim of this study was to review the quality of CPGs across a wide range of healthcare topics published since 1980. The authors conducted a literature search in MEDLINE to identify publications assessing the quality of CPGs with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. For the included guidelines in each study, the authors gathered data about the year of publication, institution, country, healthcare topic, AGREE score per domain and overall assessment. In total, 42 reviews were selected, including a total of 626 guidelines, published between 1980 and 2007, with a median of 25 CPGs. The mean scores were acceptable for the domain 'Scope and purpose' (64%; 95% CI 61.9 to 66.4) and 'Clarity and presentation' (60%; 95% CI 57.9 to 61.9), moderate for domain 'Rigour of development' (43%; 95% CI 41.0 to 45.2), and low for the other domains ('Stakeholder involvement' 35%; 95% CI 33.9 to 37.5, 'Editorial independence' 30%; 95% CI 27.9 to 32.3, and 'Applicability' 22%; 95% CI 20.4 to 23.9). From those guidelines that included an overall assessment, 62% (168/270) were recommended or recommended with provisos. There was a significant improvement over time for all domains, except for 'Editorial independence.' This review shows that despite some increase in quality of CPGs over time, the quality scores as measured with the AGREE Instrument have remained moderate to low over the last two decades. This finding urges guideline developers to continue improving the quality of their products. International collaboration could help increasing the efficiency of the process.

Context: Glycemic disturbance is usually less severe in pregnant women with type 2 than in those with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM). Nevertheless, a worse perinatal outcome in women with type 2 DM has been reported in some studies. Objective: Our objective was to review maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with type 2 vs. type 1 DM. Study Selection: We conducted a systematic review of papers providing original data on pregnancy outcomes in both type 2 and type 1 DM (Medline search of the period January 1, 1987, to June 30, 2008). Two independent investigators considered papers for eligibility, and a third one solved discrepancies. Data Extraction: Metaanalysis tools were used to compare four main outcomes (major congenital malformations, stillbirth, and neonatal and perinatal mortality) and 15 secondary ones (five maternal, 10 fetal). Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were used to assess quality. Data Synthesis: Thirty-three studies qualified for inclusion of 3743 citations retrieved. Women with type 2 DM had lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at booking and throughout pregnancy but a higher risk of perinatal mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15–1.96] without significant differences in the rates of major congenital malformations, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality. As to secondary outcomes, women with type 2 DM had less diabetic ketoacidosis (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–0.34) and cesarean section (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59–0.94) without differences in other outcomes. Conclusions: Despite a milder glycemic disturbance, women with type 2 DM had no better perinatal outcomes than those with type 1, indicating that type 2 DM in pregnancy is a serious condition. Despite lower HbA1c, women with type 2 diabetes mellitus have similar, if not worse, fetal outcomes than those with type 1 diabetes.