Osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures remain significant public health challenges worldwide. Recently the concept of frailty in relation to osteoporosis in the elderly has been increasingly accepted, with emerging studies measuring frailty as a predictor of osteoporotic fractures. In this overview, we reviewed the relationship between frailty and osteoporosis, described the approaches to measuring the grades of frailty, and presented current studies and future research directions investigating osteoporosis and frailty in the elderly. It is concluded that measuring the grades of frailty in the elderly could assist in the assessment, management and decision-making for osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures at a clinical research level and at a health care policy level.

Purpose: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. Materials and methods: Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Results: Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. Conclusion: We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports. We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively. Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies. This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

Despite the high mortality in patients with pneumonia admitted to an ICU, data on risk factors for death remain limited. In this secondary analysis of PROTECT (Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial), we focused on the patients admitted to ICU with a primary diagnosis of pneumonia. The primary outcome for this study was 90-day hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was 90-day ICU mortality. Cox regression model was conducted to examine the relationship between baseline and time-dependent variables and hospital and ICU mortality. Six hundred sixty seven patients admitted with pneumonia (43.8 % females) were included in our analysis, with a mean age of 60.7 years and mean APACHE II score of 21.3. During follow-up, 111 patients (16.6 %) died in ICU and in total, 149 (22.3 %) died in hospital. Multivariable analysis demonstrated significant independent risk factors for hospital mortality including male sex (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.5, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.1 - 2.2, p-value = 0.021), higher APACHE II score (HR = 1.2, 95 % CI: 1.1 - 1.4, p-value < 0.001 for per-5 point increase), chronic heart failure (HR = 2.9, 95 % CI: 1.6 - 5.4, p-value = 0.001), and dialysis (time-dependent effect: HR = 2.7, 95 % CI: 1.3 - 5.7, p-value = 0.008). Higher APACHE II score (HR = 1.2, 95 % CI: 1.1 - 1.4, p-value = 0.002 for per-5 point increase) and chronic heart failure (HR = 2.6, 95 % CI: 1.3 – 5.0, p-value = 0.004) were significantly related to risk of death in the ICU. In this study using data from a multicenter thromboprophylaxis trial, we found that male sex, higher APACHE II score on admission, chronic heart failure, and dialysis were independently associated with risk of hospital mortality in patients admitted to ICU with pneumonia. While high illness severity score, presence of a serious comorbidity (heart failure) and need for an advanced life support (dialysis) are not unexpected risk factors of mortality, male sex might necessitate further exploration. More studies are warranted to clarify the effect of these risk factors on survival in critically ill patients admitted to ICU with pneumonia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 .

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has demonstrated improvement in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) patients in placebo controlled trials. However, IVIG is also much more expensive than alternative treatments such as corticosteroids. The objective of the paper is to evaluate, from a Canadian perspective, the cost-effectiveness of IVIG compared to corticosteroid treatment of CIDP. A markov model was used to evaluate the costs and QALYs for IVIG and corticosteroids over 5 years of treatment for CIDP. Patients initially responding to IVIG could remain a responder or relapse every 12 week model cycle. Non-responding IVIG patients were assumed to be switched to corticosteroids. Patients on corticosteroids were at risk of a number of adverse events (fracture, diabetes, glaucoma, cataract, serious infection) in each cycle. Over the 5 year time horizon, the model estimated the incremental costs and QALYs of IVIG treatment compared to corticosteroid treatment to be $124,065 and 0.177 respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained of IVIG was estimated to be $687,287. The cost per QALY of IVIG was sensitive to the assumptions regarding frequency and dosing of maintenance IVIG. Based on common willingness to pay thresholds, IVIG would not be perceived as a cost effective treatment for CIDP.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors versus sulfonylurea as adjunctive second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, inadequately controlled with metformin mono-therapy. Sources: A systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane library. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Clinical outcomes were cardiovascular events, HbA1c % change from baseline, body weight and hypoglycemic event rate. A direct comparison meta-analysis using a random effect model was conducted to calculate mean differences in treatment effects and risk ratio between DPP-4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea. Principle findings: Ten RCTs on adult patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control were included in the final analysis. DPP-4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas produced a non-significant difference in HbA1c% change in 10,139 subjects, whereas a significant decrease in the rate of hypoglycemic events was observed in favor of DPP-4 inhibitors (RR= 0.12; P<0.00001) involving 10,616 patients, with at least one hypoglycemic event during the follow-up period (12-104 weeks). Body weight decreased by 2.2 kg (95% CI 1.7-2.7) with DPP-4 inhibitors, compared with sulfonylureas. There were insufficient data to assess a difference in the risk for cardiovascular events. Conclusion: The review shows that, in terms of clinical efficacy, there is no significant difference between DPP4-inhibitors and sulfonylurea when either is added to metformin mono-therapy. In contrast, the safety assessment analysis showed a significant decrease in the risk of hypoglycemic events in patients using DPP4-inhibitors.