Recently Published Projects

Published on December 14, 2021
Treatment of Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
92 Studies • 10 Key Questions • 92 Extraction Forms
Project created on August 17, 2017
Last updated on November 08, 2021
Objectives: The purpose of the review is to examine the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of both benefits and harms of commonly used types of nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of child and adolescent depressive disorders.
Published on December 13, 2021
Management of Infantile Epilepsies
41 Studies • 3 Key Questions • 41 Extraction Forms
Project created on August 18, 2021
Last updated on December 13, 2021
Objectives: ECRI Infantile Epilepsy Systematic Review
Published on December 02, 2021
Interventions to Decrease Hospital Length of Stay
20 Studies • 32 Key Questions • 20 Extraction Forms
Project created on December 21, 2020
Last updated on October 11, 2021
Objectives: Technical Brief aimed to identify and synthesize current knowledge and emerging concepts regarding systematic strategies that hospitals and health systems can implement to reduce length of stay (LOS), with emphasis on medically complex or vulnerable patients at high-risk for prolonged LOS due to clinical, social, or economic barriers to timely discharge.
Published on December 01, 2021
Interventions for Breathlessness in Patients with Advanced Cancer
50 Studies • 4 Key Questions • 50 Extraction Forms
Project created on August 04, 2020
Last updated on November 05, 2021
Objectives: To assess benefits and harms of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for breathlessness in adults with advanced cancer.
Published on November 29, 2021
Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain
29 Studies • 2 Key Questions • 29 Extraction Forms
Project created on October 20, 2020
Last updated on March 17, 2022
Objectives: Objectives. To evaluate the evidence on benefits and harms of cannabinoids and similar plant-based compounds (PBCs) to treat chronic pain. Data sources. Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS® databases, reference lists of included studies, submissions received after Federal Register request, were searched to July, 2021. Review methods. Using dual review, we screened search results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with chronic pain evaluating cannabis, kratom, and similar compounds with any comparison group and at least 1 month of treatment or followup. Dual review was used to abstract study data, assess study-level risk of bias, and rate the strength of evidence. Prioritized outcomes included pain, overall function, and adverse events. We grouped studies that assessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) based on their THC to CBD ratio and categorized them as high-THC to CBD ratio, comparable THC to CBD ratio, and low-THC to CBD ratio. We also grouped studies by whether the product was a whole-plant product (cannabis), cannabinoids extracted or purified from a whole plant, or synthetic. We conducted meta-analyses using the profile likelihood random effects model and assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistic chi square and the I2 test for inconsistency. Magnitude of benefit was categorized into no effect, or small, moderate, and large effects. Results. From 2,850 abstracts, 20 RCTs (N=1,776) and 7 observational studies (N=13,095) assessing different cannabinoids were included; none of kratom. Studies were primarily short-term, and 75 percent enrolled patients with a variety of neuropathic pain. Comparators were primarily placebo or usual care. The strength of evidence (SOE) was low, unless otherwise noted. Compared with placebo, comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray was associated with a small benefit in change in pain severity (7 RCTs, N=632, 0 to10 scale, mean difference [MD] −0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.95 to −0.19, I2=28%; SOE: moderate) and overall function (6 RCTs, N=616, 0 to 10 scale, MD −0.42, 95% CI, −0.73 to −0.16, I2=24%). There was no effect on study withdrawals due to adverse events. There was a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation and a moderate increased risk of nausea (dizziness: 6 RCTs, N=866, 30% vs. 8%, relative risk [RR] 3.57, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.60, I2=0%; sedation: 6 RCTs, N=866, 22% vs. 16%, RR 5.04, 95% CI 2.10 to 11.89, I2=0%; and nausea: 6 RCTs, N=866, 13% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.78, I2=0%). Synthetic high-THC to CBD was associated with a moderate improvement in pain severity, a moderate increase in sedation, and a large increase in nausea (pain: 6 RCTs, N=390 to 10 scale, MD −1.15, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.54, I2=39%; sedation: 3 RCTs, N=335, 19% vs. 10%, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.63, I2=0%; nausea: 2 RCTs, N=302, 12% vs. 6%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.39; I²=0%). We found moderate SOE for a large increased risk of dizziness (2 RCTs, 32% vs. 11%, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 6.86, I2=0%). Extracted whole-plant, high-THC to CBD (oral) was associated with a large increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events (1 RCT, 13.9% vs. 5.7%, RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.33) and dizziness (1 RCT, 62.2% vs. 7.5%, RR 8.34, 95% CI 4.53 to 15.34). We observed a moderate improvement in pain severity when combining all studies of high-THC to CBD (8 RCTs, N=684, MD −1.25, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.71, I2=50%; SOE: moderate). Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, topical, low-THC to CBD, other cannabinoids, comparisons with active products, and impact on use of opioids was insufficient to draw conclusions. Other important harms (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive effects) were not reported. Conclusions. Low to moderate strength evidence suggests small to moderate improvements in pain (mostly neuropathic), and moderate to large increases in common adverse events (dizziness, sedation, nausea) and study withdrawal due to adverse events with high- and comparable THC to CBD ratio cannabis products in short-term treatment (1 to 6 months). Evidence for other comparisons, outcomes, and PBCs were unavailable or insufficient to draw conclusions. Small sample sizes, lack of evidence for moderate and long-term use and other key outcomes, such as other adverse events and impact on use of opioids during treatment indicate that more research is needed.