Objective We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs).DATA SOURcES MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023.STUDY SELEcTION Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD.DATA EXTRAcTION AND SYNTHESIS Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial.RESULTS 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance). Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty.cONcLUSION When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain.REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD42021258567)

Background Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. Therefore, it is critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (EVARs) are now a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graL is introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This Cochrane Review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. However, the technique may be less applicable in people with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. This is an update of the previous Cochrane Review published in 2017. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of totally percutaneous access compared to cut-down femoral artery access in people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Search methods We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods The latest search was 8 April 2022. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials in people diagnosed with an AAA comparing totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down access endovascular repair. We considered all device types. We only considered studies investigating elective repairs. We excluded studies reporting emergency surgery for ruptured AAAs and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. short-term mortality, 2. failure of aneurysm exclusion and 3. wound infection. Secondary outcomes were 4. major complications (30-day or in-hospital); 5. medium- to long-term (6 and 12 months) complications and mortality; 6. bleeding complications and haematoma; and 7. operating time, duration of intensive treatment unit (ITU) stay and hospital stay. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the seven most clinically relevant primary and secondary outcomes. Main results Three studies with 318 participants met the inclusion criteria, 189 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 129 treated by cutdown femoral artery access. One study had a small sample size and did not adequately report the method of randomisation, allocation concealment or preselected outcomes. The other two larger studies had few sources of bias and good methodology; although one study had a high risk of bias in selective reporting. We observed no clear difference in short-term mortality between groups, with only one death occurring overall, in the totally percutaneous group (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 36.18; 2 studies, 181 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported failure of aneurysm exclusion. There was one failure of aneurysm exclusion in the surgical cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.02; 1 study, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For wound infection, there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.59; 3 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference between percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access groups in major complications (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.41; 3 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), bleeding complications (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.64; 2 studies, 181 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or haematoma (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.05; 2 studies, 288 participants). One study reported medium- to long-term complications at six months, with no clear differences between the percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access groups (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.65; 1 study, 135 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We detected differences in operating time, with the percutaneous approach being faster than cut-down femoral artery access (mean difference (MD) -21.13 minutes, 95% CI -41.74 to -0.53 minutes; 3 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported the duration of ITU stay and hospital stay, with no clear difference between groups. Authors' conclusions Skin puncture may make little to no difference to short-term mortality. There is probably little or no difference in failure of aneurysm exclusion (failure to seal the aneurysms), wound infection, major complications within 30 days or while in hospital, medium- to long-term (six months) complications and bleeding complications between the two groups. Compared with exposing the femoral artery, skin puncture may reduce the operating time slightly. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate and low as a result of imprecision due to the small number of participants, low event rates and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to clinical heterogeneity. As the number of included studies was limited, further research into this technique would be beneficial.

Background As systematically developed statements regarding possible courses of action, health system guidance (HSG) can assist with making decisions about addressing problems or achieving goals in health systems. However, there are conceptual and methodological challenges in HSG implementation due to the complexity of health-system policy-making, the diversity of available evidence and vast differences in contexts. To address these gaps, we aim to develop a theoretical framework for supporting HSG implementation as part of a broader effort to promote evidence-informed policy-making in health systems. Methods To develop a theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation, we will apply a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to synthesize the findings from a range of relevant literature. We will search 11 electronic databases and seven organizational websites to identify relevant published and grey literature. We will check the references of included studies and contact experts to identify additional eligible papers. Finally, we will conduct purposively sampling of the literature to fill any identified conceptual gaps. We will use relevance and five quality criteria to assess included papers. A standardized form will be developed for extracting information. We will use an interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the findings, including a constant comparative method throughout the analysis. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature screening and relevance assessment, and disagreements will be resolved through discussion. The principal investigator will conduct data extraction and synthesis, and a second reviewer will check the sample of extracted data for consistency and accuracy. Discussion A new theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation will be developed using a CIS approach. The HSG implementation framework could be widely used for supporting the implementation of HSG covering varied topics and in different contexts (including low-, middle- and high-income countries). In later work, we will develop a tool for supporting HSG implementation based on the theoretical framework. Registration PROSPERO CRD42020214072. Date of Registration: 14 December 2020.