PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews: Management of osteoarthritis in primary care.

Objective: To determine how many patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain respond to various non-surgical treatments.

Data Sources: PubMed and the Cochrane Library.

Study Selection: Published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included meta-analysis of responder outcomes for at least 1 of the following interventions were included: acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, cannabinoids, counseling, exercise, platelet-rich plasma, viscosupplementation, glucosamine, chondroitin, intra-articular corticosteroids, rubefacients, or opioids.

Opioid use disorder in primary care: PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews.

Objective: To summarize the best available evidence regarding various topics related to primary care management of opioid use disorder (OUD).

Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google, and the references of included studies and relevant guidelines.

Study Selection: Published systematic reviews and newer randomized controlled trials from the past 5 to 10 years that investigated patient-oriented outcomes related to managing OUD in primary care, diagnosis, pharmacotherapies (including buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), tapering strategies, psychosocial interventions, prescribing practices, and management of comorbidities.

What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.

Objective: To identify the most commonly presenting conditions in primary care globally, and to compare common reasons for visits (RFVs) as reported by clinicians and patients, as well as among countries of different economic classifications.

Data Sources: Twelve scientific databases were searched up to January 2016, and a dual independent review was performed to select primary care studies.

Study Selection: Studies were included if they contained 20 000 visits or more (or equivalent volume by patient-clinician interactions) and listed 10 or more RFVs.

Systematic review of systematic reviews for medical cannabinoids: Pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and harms.

Objective: To determine the effects of medical cannabinoids on pain, spasticity, and nausea and vomiting, and to identify adverse events.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and the references of included studies were searched.

Study Selection: Systematic reviews with 2 or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on medical cannabinoids for pain, spasticity, or nausea and vomiting were included.

Are potentially clinically meaningful benefits misinterpreted in cardiovascular randomized trials? A systematic examination of statistical significance, clinical significance, and authors' conclusions.

Background: While journals and reporting guidelines recommend the presentation of confidence intervals, many authors adhere strictly to statistically significant testing. Our objective was to determine what proportions of not statistically significant (NSS) cardiovascular trials include potentially clinically meaningful effects in primary outcomes and if these are associated with authors' conclusions.

Methods: Cardiovascular studies published in six high-impact journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 were identified via PubMed.