A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

Telerehabilitation and Its Impact Following Stroke: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

Objectives: To summarize the impact of various telerehabilitation interventions on motor function, balance, gait, activities of daily living (ADLs), and quality of life (QoL) among patients with stroke and to determine the existing telerehabilitation interventions for delivering physiotherapy sessions in clinical practice. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched to identify relevant quantitative systematic reviews (SRs). Due to substantial heterogeneity, the data were analysed narratively. Results: A total of 28 systematic reviews (n = 245 primary studies) were included that examined various telerehabilitation interventions after stroke. Motor function was the most studied outcome domain across the reviews (20 SRs), followed by ADL (18 SRs), and balance (14 SRs) domains. For primary outcomes, our findings highlight moderate- to high-quality evidence showing either a significant effect or no significant difference between telerehabilitation and other interventions. There was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion regarding feasibility outcomes, including participant satisfaction, adherence to treatment, and cost. Most reviews under this umbrella included patients with stroke in the subacute or chronic phase (12 SRs). Simple and complex telerehabilitation interventions such as telephone calls, videoconferencing, smartphone- or tablet-based mobile health applications, messaging, virtual reality, robot-assisted devices, and 3D animation videos, either alone or in combination with other interventions, were included across reviews. Conclusions: Various telerehabilitation interventions have shown either a significant effect or no significant difference compared to other interventions in improving upper and lower limb motor function, balance, gait, ADLs, and QoL, regardless of whether simple or complex approaches were used. Further research is needed to support the delivery of rehabilitation services through telerehabilitation intervention following a stroke.

Effects of high-intensity interval training on cardiorespiratory function in coronary artery disease: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation has been identified as a crucial component in mitigating all-cause mortality among individuals diagnosed with coronary artery disease (CAD). Nevertheless, the optimal exercise prescription remains elusive.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this overview is to conduct a systematic evaluation and synthesis of the evidence derived from systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) regarding the effects on cardiorespiratory fitness and safety of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for CAD.

METHODS

SRs/MAs were searched across 5 databases from inception until March 22, 2023. We assessed methodological quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2). The risk of bias, reporting, and evidence were evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool, the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 9 SRs/MAs were included. Based on the AMSTAR-2 criteria, 4 and 5 studies were considered low- and critically-low quality, respectively. None of the studies reported all 27 items outlined in the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Regarding the ROBIS evaluation, 4 reviews were rated as low risk, 4 as high risk, and 1 as unclear risk. The GRADE evaluation indicated 3 high-level evidence, 20 moderate-level evidence, 28 low-level evidence, and 34 very low-level evidence studies based on 85 indicators. Moderate- to high-quality evidence supported that HIIT is superior to MICT in improving VO2peak for CAD.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and time cost of developing cardiorespiratory fitness support HIIT as an adjunct or alternative to MICT. The evidence does not permit a definitive decision regarding the adverse effects of HIIT compared to MICT. Because of the insufficient quality of the evidence, future studies should focus more on the quality of randomized controlled trials and evidence for SRs/MAs to provide scientific and robust evidence for conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42023420015.

Use and impact of clinical pathways across various healthcare settings: A protocol for an umbrella review of global evidence

AIM

The proposed umbrella review aims to assess the use and impact of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, patient satisfaction, and hospital staff satisfaction through a synthesis of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

METHODS

Following PRIOR guidelines, a systematic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses, from inception till March 2024. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, with a third resolving any disagreements. Full-text articles considered potentially relevant will be assessed for eligibility by the same process. The data extraction form will cover information about the review methods, characteristics of the included primary studies, the types of interventions evaluated, and the reported outcomes. This standardized data extraction form will be piloted by the review team on five to ten articles to ensure all relevant information is recorded. The quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42024529371.

RESULTS

The study will present a narrative synthesis of the findings, addressing the clinical and methodological heterogeneity and assessing the impact of clinical pathways on various healthcare outcomes.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This umbrella review will provide evidence-based insights into the effectiveness, challenges, and best practices of clinical pathways, guiding healthcare decision-making and identifying areas for future research. Results will be disseminated widely to inform policy and improve healthcare service delivery.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution, as this paper is a protocol of an umbrella review.

Guidance on how to efficiently find, choose, and use available systematic reviews was developed

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians and authors of clinical guidelines or patient information with practical guidance on searching and choosing systematic reviews(s) (SR[s]) and, where adequate, on making use of SR(s).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

At the German conference of the Evidence-Based Medicine Network (EbM Network) a workshop on the topic was held to identify the most important areas where guidance for practice appears necessary. After the workshop, we established working groups. These included SR users with different backgrounds (eg, information specialists, epidemiologists) and working areas. Each working group developed and consented a draft guidance based on their expert knowledge and experiences. The results were presented to the entire group and finalized in an iterative process.

RESULTS

We developed a practical guidance that answers questions that usually arise when choosing and using SR(s). (1) How to efficiently find high-quality SRs? (2) How to choose the most appropriate SR? (3) What to do if no SR of sufficient quality could be identified? In addition, we developed an algorithm that links these steps and accounts for their interaction. The resulting guidance is primarily directed at clinicians and developers of clinical practice guidelines or patient information resources.

CONCLUSION

We suggest practical guidance for making the best use of SRs when answering a specific research question. The guidance may contribute to the efficient use of existing SRs. Potential benefits when using existing SRs should be always weighted against potential limitations.

Association of tooth loss and nutritional status in adults: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Association of tooth loss and nutritional status has been widely researched with conflicting results. This overview aimed to analyse and summarize findings from systematic reviews on association of tooth loss with nutritional status, in view of their quality assessment and methodological characteristics.

METHODS

Overview was conducted as per Cochrane Overviews of Reviews guidelines. 5 databases (PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, Scopus, Cochrane Register of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos.org) and one online source (Google Scholar) were searched for systematic reviews published between 2010 - July 2022, with inclusion criteria; population: participants aged 18 years or above, intervention/exposure: loss of teeth, comparison: not applicable, outcome: nutritional status, study: systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Reviews on association of prosthetic interventions with nutritional status were not included. Data were extracted for study characteristics, details of primary studies, and main findings. Narrative synthesis of data, overlap of primary studies and quality assessment of studies were done using AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews).

RESULT

Of 1525 articles found, seven systematic reviews were selected (four were systematic reviews, three were systematic reviews with meta-analysis). Five studies showed some or positive association, one found weak association and for one study the association was unclear. Overlap of primary studies was 'very slight'. Meta-analysis of two studies concluded fully or partially edentulous individuals were more likely to be malnourished or at risk of malnutrition, (RR = 1.095, 95% CI 1.007 to 1.190, p = 0.033. RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.32 p < 0.01), but one found that edentulism was not associated with malnutrition. (RR = 1.072, 95% CI 0.9657-1.200). Quality assessment revealed four studies were 'high', one was 'low' and two were 'critically low.'

CONCLUSION

This overview confirms the association between tooth loss and nutritional status specially in elderly. It is evident that tooth loss increases the likelihood of poor nutritional status. Overall, studies show high heterogeneity in the methodology and quality assessment reveals low confidence in the available evidence. Future studies should use standard assessment tools for tooth loss and nutritional status.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among adults: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview of reviews aims to identify evidence on the benefits (i.e. tobacco use abstinence and reduction in smoking frequency) and harms (i.e. possible adverse events/outcomes) of smoking cessation interventions among adults aged 18 years and older.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the CADTH Health Technology Assessment Database and several other websites for grey literature. Searches were conducted on November 12, 2018, updated on September 24, 2020, with publication years 2008 to 2020. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening considering pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessments were initially completed by two reviewers independently (i.e. 73% of included studies (n = 22)) using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR 2), and the remainder done by one reviewer and verified by another due to resources and feasibility. The application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another.

RESULTS

A total of 22 Cochrane systematic reviews evaluating the impact of smoking cessation interventions on outcomes such as tobacco use abstinence, reduction in smoking frequency, quality of life and possible adverse events were included. Pharmaceutical (i.e. varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion) and behavioural interventions (i.e. physician advice, non-tailored print-based self-help materials, stage-based individual counselling, etc.) showed to have increased smoking cessation; whereas, data for mobile phone-based interventions including text messaging, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, continuous auricular stimulation, laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe), interactive voice response systems and other combination treatments were unclear. Considering harms related to smoking cessation interventions, small/mild harms (i.e. increased palpitations, chest pain, nausea, insomnia, headache) were observed following NRT, varenicline and cytisine use. There were no data on harms related to behavioural therapies (i.e. individual or group counselling self-help materials, internet interventions), combination therapies or other therapies (i.e. laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, SAMe).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that pharmacological and behavioural interventions may help the general smoking population quit smoking with observed small/mild harms following NRT or varenicline. Consequently, evidence regarding ideal intervention strategies and the long-term impact of these interventions for preventing smoking was unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018099691.

Association between semen parameters and recurrent pregnancy loss: An umbrella review of meta-analyses

AIM

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a common clinical reproductive problem. With research advancements, an increasing number of studies have suggested that male factors play an important role in RPL. However, the evaluation results of male sperm quality in published meta-analyses are inconsistent. We aimed to summarize the evidence of the association between semen factors and RPL and evaluate the level and validity of the evidence.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the association between male semen parameters and RPL. The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was assessed, and data and evidence were re-synthesized and stratified using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven meta-analyses and nine semen parameters were included in the final analysis. The methodological quality of all publications was considered low or very low. There was highly suggestive evidence for the association between sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), sperm progressive motility rate, and RPL (class II). The evidence level for the association between sperm concentration, normal sperm morphology, sperm deformity rate, total motility, and RPL was suggestive evidence (class III). The evidence level for the association between sperm volume and sperm count and RPL was weak (class IV). There was no significant association between sperm pH and RPL (class NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest level II evidence for the association between male SDF and RPL, while the evidence level for the association between conventional semen routine parameters and RPL was low (classes III and IV).

Vitamin D and Cutaneous Melanoma Risk: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Background: Vitamin D (VitD) properties can impact cancer cells. Despite the documented link between VitD levels and prevalence of several cancer types, conflicting findings have been reported for cutaneous melanoma (CM). Objective: This overview aims to compile the evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, emphasizing the relationships between VitD serum levels, intake, receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms, and CM risk. Methods: A literature search in electronic databases was conducted, based on certain inclusion criteria. Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Conflicting evidence between high VitD serum levels, dietary/supplementary intake, and CM risk is highlighted. VDR polymorphisms may play a role in the intricate CM pathogenesis. Also, high serum levels of VitD are associated with improved CM prognosis. Conclusions: This overview showed that the impact of VitD on CM is not clear, and thus further research is suggested to explore its true effect size on CM risk.

Effects of task shifting from primary care physicians to nurses: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Task-shifting from primary care physicians (PCPs) to nurses is one option to better and more efficiently meet the needs of the population in primary care and to overcome PCP shortages. This protocol outlines an overview of systematic reviews to assess the effects of delegation or substitution by nurses of PCPs' activities regarding clinical, patient-relevant, professional and health services-related outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic literature search for secondary literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and Health Technology Assessments in German and English comprising randomised controlled trials and prospective controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. Search terms will include Medical Subject Headings combined with free text words. At least one-third of abstracts and full-text articles are reviewed by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. We will only consider reviews if they include controlled trials, if the profession that substituted or delegated tasks was a nurse, if the profession of the control was a PCP, if the assessed intervention was the same in the intervention and control group and if the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire score is ≥5. The corrected covered area will be calculated to describe the degree of overlap of studies in the reviews included in the study. We will report the overview according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The overview of secondary literature does not require the approval of an Ethics Committee and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020183327.

Autoimmune diseases and adverse pregnancy outcomes: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

There is a high prevalence of autoimmune conditions in women specially in the reproductive years; thus, the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes has been widely studied. However, few autoimmune conditions/adverse outcomes have been studied more than others, and this umbrella review aims to consolidate existing knowledge in this area with the aim to provide new knowledge and also identify gaps in this research area.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to December 2023. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were done by two independent reviewers. Data were synthesised narratively and quantitatively. Relative risks (RR)/odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-two reviews were included consisting of 709 primary studies. The review reported the association between 12 autoimmune conditions and 16 adverse pregnancy outcomes. Higher risk of miscarriage is reported in women with Sjögren's syndrome RR 8.85 (95% CI 3.10-25.26) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) OR 4.90 (3.10-7.69). Pre-eclampsia was reported higher in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) OR 4.19 (3.08-5.71) and SLE OR 3.20 (2.54-4.20). Women reported higher risk of diabetes during pregnancy with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) OR 2.96 (1.47-5.98). There was an increased risk of intrauterine growth restriction in women with systemic sclerosis OR 3.20 (2.21-4.53) and coeliac disease OR 1.71 (1.36-2.14). Preterm birth was associated with T1DM OR 4.36 (3.72-5.12) and SLE OR 2.79 (2.07-3.77). Low birth weight babies were reported in women with women with SLE or systemic sclerosis OR 5.95 (4.54-7.80) and OR 3.80 (2.16-6.56), respectively. There was a higher risk of stillbirth in women with T1DM OR 3.97 (3.44-4.58), IBD OR 1.57 (1.03-2.38), and coeliac disease OR 1.57 (1.17-2.10). T1DM in women was associated with 32% lower odds of small for gestational age baby OR 0.68 (0.56-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women with autoimmune conditions are at a greater risk of developing adverse pregnancy outcomes. Further research is required to develop better preconception to postnatal care for women with autoimmune conditions.

The reporting completeness and transparency of systematic reviews of prognostic prediction models for COVID-19 was poor: a methodological overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a methodological overview of reviews to evaluate the reporting completeness and transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) of prognostic prediction models (PPMs) for COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos (epistemonikos.org) were searched for SRs of PPMs for COVID-19 until December 31, 2022. The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The protocol for this overview was uploaded in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7y94c).

RESULTS

Ten SRs were retrieved; none of them synthesized the results in a meta-analysis. For most of the studies, there was absence of a predefined protocol and missing information on study selection, data collection process, and reporting of primary studies and models included, while only one SR had its data publicly available. In addition, for the majority of the SRs, the overall risk of bias was judged as being high. The overall corrected covered area was 6.3% showing a small amount of overlapping among the SRs.

CONCLUSION

The reporting completeness and transparency of SRs of PPMs for COVID-19 was poor. Guidance is urgently required, with increased awareness and education of minimum reporting standards and quality criteria. Specific focus is needed in predefined protocol, information on study selection and data collection process, and in the reporting of findings to improve the quality of SRs of PPMs for COVID-19.

Ginger for treating nausea and vomiting: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Ginger may be a potential remedy for nausea and vomiting. This review aimed to assess the reporting and methodological quality, and integrate the evidence in this field. A total of fifteen meta-analyses were analysed and met the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 guidelines, providing a relatively complete statement. However, methodological quality, assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 checklist, was deemed critically low to low. Our review's findings support ginger's effectiveness in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. It also reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting severity, decreasing the need for rescue antiemetics. Furthermore, ginger shows promise in alleviating pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting symptoms. The pooled evidence suggests ginger as a safe botanical option for managing nausea and vomiting, but it is important to improve the scientific quality of published meta-analyses in the future.

Association between pregnancy-related complications and development of type 2 diabetes and hypertension in women: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Despite many systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the associations of pregnancy complications with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension, previous umbrella reviews have only examined a single pregnancy complication. Here we have synthesised evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the associations of a wide range of pregnancy-related complications with risk of developing T2DM and hypertension.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception until 26 September 2022 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis examining the association between pregnancy complications and risk of T2DM and hypertension. Screening of articles, data extraction and quality appraisal (AMSTAR2) were conducted independently by two reviewers using Covidence software. Data were extracted for studies that examined the risk of T2DM and hypertension in pregnant women with the pregnancy complication compared to pregnant women without the pregnancy complication. Summary estimates of each review were presented using tables, forest plots and narrative synthesis and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) guidelines.

RESULTS

Ten systematic reviews were included. Two pregnancy complications were identified. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM): One review showed GDM was associated with a 10-fold higher risk of T2DM at least 1 year after pregnancy (relative risk (RR) 9.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.14 to 12.67) and although the association differed by ethnicity (white: RR 16.28 (95% CI 15.01 to 17.66), non-white: RR 10.38 (95% CI 4.61 to 23.39), mixed: RR 8.31 (95% CI 5.44 to 12.69)), the between subgroups difference were not statistically significant at 5% significance level. Another review showed GDM was associated with higher mean blood pressure at least 3 months postpartum (mean difference in systolic blood pressure: 2.57 (95% CI 1.74 to 3.40) mmHg and mean difference in diastolic blood pressure: 1.89 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.46) mmHg). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP): Three reviews showed women with a history of HDP were 3 to 6 times more likely to develop hypertension at least 6 weeks after pregnancy compared to women without HDP (meta-analysis with largest number of studies: odds ratio (OR) 4.33 (3.51 to 5.33)) and one review reported a higher rate of T2DM after HDP (hazard ratio (HR) 2.24 (1.95 to 2.58)) at least a year after pregnancy. One of the three reviews and five other reviews reported women with a history of preeclampsia were 3 to 7 times more likely to develop hypertension at least 6 weeks postpartum (meta-analysis with the largest number of studies: OR 3.90 (3.16 to 4.82) with one of these reviews reporting the association was greatest in women from Asia (Asia: OR 7.54 (95% CI 2.49 to 22.81), Europe: OR 2.19 (95% CI 0.30 to 16.02), North and South America: OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.26 to 8.74)).

CONCLUSIONS

GDM and HDP are associated with a greater risk of developing T2DM and hypertension. Common confounders adjusted for across the included studies in the reviews were maternal age, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic status, smoking status, pre-pregnancy and current BMI, parity, family history of T2DM or cardiovascular disease, ethnicity, and time of delivery. Further research is needed to evaluate the value of embedding these pregnancy complications as part of assessment for future risk of T2DM and chronic hypertension.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

The Association of Vitamin D with Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Background and Objectives: Previous studies revealed the anti-angiogenic, antiproliferative, and anti-inflammatory effects of Vitamin D (VitD) on cancer cells. Although this body of evidence supported the correlation of high VitD levels with reduced incidence rates for various malignancies, contradictory results were reported regarding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). The aim of this overview was to summarize the available evidence from the existing pool of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on VitD serum status, dietary intake, and VitD receptor (VDR) polymorphisms in correlation to NMSC incidence. Materials and Methods: A literature search in electronic databases was conducted from inception to January 2023. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals, evaluating VitD serum levels, dietary and/or supplementary intake, or VDR gene polymorphisms, and reporting data on NMSC. Results: A total of 10 studies were included in the data analysis models. A positive association between VitD serum levels and NMSC is highlighted. However, dietary/supplementation of VitD does not exhibit a likewise strong linkage to NMSC. Despite the contradictory findings, VDR polymorphisms may play a crucial role in the intricate NMSC pathogenesis. Conclusions: This umbrella review shows that high VitD levels are associated with increased NMSC incidence, potentially due to its direct correlation with increased sun exposure. Further research on VDR polymorphisms is suggested to explore their true effect size on NMSC risk.

Treatable traits for long COVID

Long COVID, or post-acute COVID-19 sequelae, is experienced by an estimated one in eight adults following acute COVID-19. Long COVID is a new and complex chronic health condition that typically includes multiple symptoms that cross organ systems and fluctuate over time; a one-size-fits-all approach is, therefore, not likely to be appropriate nor relevant for long COVID treatment. 'Treatable Traits' is a personalized medicine approach, purpose-built to address the complexity and heterogeneity of complex chronic conditions. This comprehensive review aimed to understand how a treatable traits approach could be applied to long COVID, by first identifying the most prevalent long COVID treatable traits and then the available evidence for strategies to target these traits. An umbrella review of 22 systematic reviews identified 34 symptoms and complications common with long COVID, grouped into eight long COVID treatable trait clusters: neurological, chest, psychological, pain, fatigue, sleep impairment, functional impairment and other. A systematic review of randomized control trials identified 18 studies that explored different intervention approaches for long COVID prevention (k = 4) or management (k = 14). While a single study reported metformin as effective for long COVID prevention, the findings need to be replicated and consensus is required around how to define long COVID as a clinical trial endpoint. For long COVID management, current evidence supports exercise training or respiratory muscle training for long COVID treatable traits in the chest and functional limitation clusters. While there are studies exploring interventions targeting other long COVID treatable traits, further high-quality RCTs are needed, particularly targeting treatable traits in the clusters of fatigue, psychological, pain and sleep impairment.

A Primer on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Diabetes Research

A systematic review is a rigorous process that involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing available evidence pertaining to an a priori-defined research question. The resulting evidence base may be summarized qualitatively or through a quantitative analytic approach known as meta-analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMAs) have risen in popularity across the scientific realm including diabetes research. Although well-conducted SRMAs are an indispensable tool in informing evidence-based medicine, the proliferation of SRMAs has led to many reviews of questionable quality and misleading conclusions. The objective of this article is to provide up-to-date knowledge and a comprehensive understanding of strengths and limitations of SRMAs. We first provide an overview of the SRMA process and offer ways to identify common pitfalls at key steps. We then describe best practices as well as evolving approaches to mitigate biases, improve transparency, and enhance rigor. We discuss several recent developments in SRMAs including individual-level meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, and prospective meta-analyses. Additionally, we outline several strategies that can be used to enhance quality of SRMAs and present key questions that authors, editors, and readers should consider in preparing or critically reviewing SRMAs.

Intervention targets for reducing mortality between mid-adolescence and mid-adulthood: a protocol for a machine-learning facilitated systematic umbrella review

INTRODUCTION

A rise in premature mortality-defined here as death during the most productive years of life, between adolescence and middle adulthood (15-60 years)-is contributing to stalling life expectancy in high-income countries. Causes of mortality vary, but often include substance misuse, suicide, unintentional injury and non-communicable disease. The development of evidence-informed policy frameworks to guide new approaches to prevention require knowledge of early targets for intervention, and interactions between higher level drivers. Here, we aim to: (1) identify systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focused on intervention targets for premature mortality (in which intervention targets are causes of mortality that can, at least hypothetically, be modified to reduce risk); (2) evaluate the review quality and risk of bias; (3) compare and evaluate each review's, and their relevant primary studies, findings to identify existing evidence gaps.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In May 2023, we searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) for peer-reviewed papers published in the English language in the 12 years from 2012 to 2023 that examined intervention targets for mortality. Screening will narrow these papers to focus on systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, and their primary papers. Our outcome is death between ages 15 and 60 years; with potential intervention targets measured prior to death. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) will be used to assess quality and risk of bias within included systematic reviews. Results will be synthesised narratively due to anticipated heterogeneity between reviews and between primary studies contained within included reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will synthesise findings from published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and their primary reviewed studies, meaning ethics committee approval is not required. Our findings will inform cross-cohort consortium development, be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and be presented at national and international conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022355861.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Key Considerations When Addressing Physical Inactivity and Sedentary Behaviour in People with Asthma

People with asthma tend to be less physically active and more sedentary than people without asthma. This narrative review aimed to present key considerations when addressing physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour in people with asthma by identifying barriers and facilitators, determinants and correlates, and intervention approaches. Using a search strategy, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies. Data extracted from studies were qualitatively synthesised. A total of 26 studies were included in the review. Six studies reported asthma symptoms as a barrier to physical activity, while four studies reported having a supportive network as a physical activity facilitator. Across studies, physical activity correlates/determinants were pulmonary function, exercise capacity, body mass index, dyspnoea, psychological health, and asthma control. Interventions that effectively improved physical activity in the short term were a step-based prescription programme, a weight loss programme incorporating aerobic and resistance training, and a weight loss lifestyle intervention, while a high-intensity interval training pulmonary rehabilitation program was effective in the long term. The collective findings suggest that a personalised physical activity programme incorporating different strategies is needed. There was minimal evidence to provide recommendations to optimise sedentary behaviour in asthma, and more research is needed on the topic.

Estimating pairwise overlap in umbrella reviews: Considerations for using the corrected covered area (CCA) index methodology

Umbrella reviews (reviews of systematic reviews) are increasingly used to synthesize findings from systematic reviews. One important challenge when pooling data from several systematic reviews is publication overlap, that is, the same primary publications being included in multiple reviews. Pieper et al. have proposed using the corrected covered area (CCA) index to quantify the degree of overlap between systematic reviews to be pooled in an umbrella review. Recently, this methodology has been integrated in Excel- or R-based tools for easier use. In this short letter, we highlight an important consideration for using the CCA methodology for pairwise overlap assessment, especially when reviews include varying numbers of primary publications, and we urge researchers to fine-tune this method and exercise caution when review exclusion decisions are based on its output.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions to prevent adverse events in the intensive care unit: A review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Different types of interventions have been assessed for the prevention of adverse events. However, determining which patient-safety practice is most effective can be challenging when there is no systematised evidence synthesis. An overview following the best methodological standards can provide the best reliable integrative evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to provide an overview of effectiveness nonpharmacological interventions aimed at preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

A review of systematic reviews (SRs) was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched for SRs published until March 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed the study's quality, using AMSTAR-2, and extracted data on intervention characteristics and effect on prevention of adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven SRs were included, and 27 nonpharmacological interventions were identified to prevent 11 adverse events. Most of the reviews had critically low methodological quality. Among all the identified interventions, subglottic secretion drainage, semirecumbent position, and kinetic bed therapy were effective in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia; the use of earplugs, early mobilisation, family participation, and music in reducing delirium; physical rehabilitation in improving muscle strength; use of respiratory support in preventing reintubation; the use of a computerised physician order entry system in reducing risk of medication errors; and the use of heated water humidifier was effective in reducing artificial airway occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Some nonpharmacological interventions reduced adverse events in the intensive care setting. These findings should be interpreted carefully due to the low methodological quality. SRs on preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit should adhere to quality assessment tools so that best evidence can be used in decision-making.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

e-Cigarette Use and the Cessation of Tobacco Cigarette Smoking: Protocol for an Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), commonly called e-cigarettes, have been examined in clinical studies for their effects on tobacco smoking cessation. In the past 2 years, a dozen or more systematic reviews on ENDS and cigarette smoking cessation have been published that present differing conclusions and recommendations on the use of ENDS.

OBJECTIVE

Our umbrella review aims to synthesize the findings from current systematic reviews to investigate the quit rates and the percentage of participants abstinent from cigarette smoking using ENDS. Additionally, we will examine the quit rates with ENDS in comparison to other established cessation treatments.

METHODS

The search will retrieve systematic reviews that include both clinical trials and experimental studies on the use of ENDS for smoking cessation. We will also include nonrandomized cohort studies that track ENDS use and the subsequent abstinence from smoking. Databases searches will be conducted in Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and 7 additional registries. Secondary searches will include reference checking, citation chasing, and consultations with topic experts. Two reviewers will perform a title and abstract exclusion followed by a full-paper inclusion process. Data extraction will be conducted by 1 reviewer and completely checked by a second reviewer. Each systematic review will be assessed by 2 reviewers for methodological quality using AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2) and for reporting bias using categories from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's Catalogue of Bias. Unreported discrepancies between the protocol and the published review will be identified.

RESULTS

The umbrella review started on March 1, 2023. At the time of publication, the study selection was being conducted and the pilot testing of the data extraction and bias assessment forms were in progress. The review is expected to be completed by December 31, 2023, followed by the submission of the review for journal publication. A second-order meta-analysis will calculate the range and average of quit rates for ENDS. A vote counting of the direction of effect, based on quit rates, will be used to present the relative effectiveness of ENDS for smoking cessation compared to other cessation treatments (including no treatment). A citation matrix will list primary studies with their bias ratings from all the systematic reviews. The effect of overlapping studies between the systematic reviews will be calculated using the corrected coverage area analysis. A sensitivity analysis will examine the impact of the intensity of cessation treatment on quit rates. Depending on the availability of data, subgroup analyses will be conducted based on participants' gender, age, prior quit attempts, and nicotine dependence. The strength or weakness of the evidence synthesis will be assessed using a stratification of evidence technique. Reporting bias will be presented with a tabulation of bias indicators. Publication bias will be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ENDS for smoking cessation is a highly controversial subject. Through an exhaustive synthesis of the available data, we will present the quit rates of cigarette smoking cessation obtained with ENDS and how they compare to quit rates obtained from other established cessation treatments. The critical quality and bias assessment of the systematic reviews will indicate the most reliable sources to inform treatment considerations and policy development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023406165; https://tinyurl.com/4ekzpbrj.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/47711.

Overviews of reviews in the cardiovascular field underreported critical methodological and transparency characteristics: a methodological study based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, reporting characteristics, and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement of overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 15, 2020. An updated search was performed in MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar up to August 25, 2022. Overviews of interventions published in English and primarily considering populations, interventions, and outcomes pertinent to the cardiovascular field were eligible. Study selection, data extraction, and PRIOR adherence assessment were performed by two authors independently.

RESULTS

We analyzed 96 overviews. Almost half (43/96 [45%]) were published between 2020 and 2022 and contained a median of 15 systematic reviews (SRs) (interquartile range, 9-28). The commonest title terminology was "overview of (systematic) reviews" (38/96 [40%]). Methods for handling SR overlap were reported in 24/96 (25%), methods for assessing primary study overlap in 18/96 (19%), handling of discrepant data in 11/96 (11%), and methods for methodological quality or risk of bias assessment of the primary studies within SRs in 23/96 (24%). Authors included data sharing statements in 28/96 (29%), complete funding disclosure in 43/96 (45%), protocol registration in 43/96 (45%), and conflict of interest statement in 82/96 (85%) overviews.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient reporting was identified in methodological characteristics unique in overviews' conduct and most transparency markers. Adoption of PRIOR from the research community could ameliorate overviews' reporting.

Diagnosis or prognosis? An umbrella review of mid-trimester cervical length and spontaneous preterm birth

BACKGROUND

Cervical length is widely used to assess a woman's risk of spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB).

OBJECTIVES

To summarise and critically appraise the evidence from systematic reviews on the prognostic capacity of transvaginal sonographic cervical length in the second trimester in asymptomatic women with singleton or twin pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and grey literature from 1 January 1995 to 6 July 2021, including keywords 'cervical length', 'preterm birth', 'obstetric labour, premature', 'review' and others, without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic reviews including women who did not receive treatments to reduce SPTB risk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

From 2472 articles, 14 systematic reviews were included. Summary statistics were independently extracted by two reviewers, tabulated and analysed descriptively. The ROBIS tool was used to evaluate risk of bias of included systematic reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve reviews performed meta-analyses: two were reported as systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies, ten used diagnostic test accuracy methodology. Ten systematic reviews were at high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analyses reported up to 80 combinations of cervical length, gestational age at measurement and definition of preterm birth. Cervical length was consistently associated with SPTB, with a likelihood ratio for a positive test of 1.70-142.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of cervical length to predict SPTB is a prognostic research question; systematic reviews typically analysed diagnostic test accuracy. Individual participant data meta-analysis using prognostic factor research methods is recommended to better quantify how well transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical length can predict SPTB.

Anxiety Screening: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Anxiety is commonly seen in primary care and associated with substantial burden.

Objective

To review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for anxiety and the accuracy of instruments to detect anxiety among primary care patients.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022.

Study Selection

English-language original studies and systematic reviews of screening or treatment compared with control conditions and test accuracy studies of a priori-selected screening instruments were included. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Two investigators independently rated study quality.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Meta-analysis results were included from existing systematic reviews where available; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Anxiety and depression outcomes; global quality of life and functioning; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools.

Results

Of the 59 publications included, 40 were original studies (N = 275 489) and 19 were systematic reviews (including ≈483 studies [N≈81 507]). Two screening studies found no benefit for screening for anxiety. Among test accuracy studies, only the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) GAD-2 and GAD-7 screening instruments were evaluated by more than 1 study. Both screening instruments had adequate accuracy for detecting generalized anxiety disorder (eg, across 3 studies the GAD-7 at a cutoff of 10 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94] and specificity of 0.89 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94]). Evidence was limited for other instruments and other anxiety disorders. A large body of evidence supported the benefit of treatment for anxiety. For example, psychological interventions were associated with a small pooled standardized mean difference of -0.41 in anxiety symptom severity in primary care patients with anxiety (95% CI, -0.58 to -0.23]; 10 RCTs [n = 2075]; I2 = 40.2%); larger effects were found in general adult populations.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits or harms of anxiety screening programs. However, clear evidence exists that treatment for anxiety is beneficial, and more limited evidence indicates that some anxiety screening instruments have acceptable accuracy to detect generalized anxiety disorder.

Depression and Suicide Risk Screening: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Depression is common and associated with substantial burden. Suicide rates have increased over the past decade, and both suicide attempts and deaths have devastating effects on individuals and families.

Objective

To review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for depression and suicide risk and the accuracy of instruments to detect these conditions among primary care patients.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022.

Study Selection

English-language studies of screening or treatment compared with control conditions, or test accuracy of screening instruments (for depression, instruments were selected a priori; for suicide risk, all were included). Existing systematic reviews were used for treatment and test accuracy for depression.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Findings were synthesized qualitatively, including reporting of meta-analysis results from existing systematic reviews; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Depression outcomes; suicidal ideation, attempts, and deaths; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools.

Results

For depression, 105 studies were included: 32 original studies (N=385 607) and 73 systematic reviews (including ≈2138 studies [N ≈ 9.8 million]). Depression screening interventions, many of which included additional components beyond screening, were associated with a lower prevalence of depression or clinically important depressive symptomatology after 6 to 12 months (pooled odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.50-0.73]; reported in 8 randomized clinical trials [n=10 244]; I2 = 0%). Several instruments demonstrated adequate test accuracy (eg, for the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire at a cutoff of 10 or greater, the pooled sensitivity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.89] and specificity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.82-0.88]; reported in 47 studies [n = 11 234]). A large body of evidence supported benefits of psychological and pharmacologic treatment of depression. A pooled estimate from trials used for US Food and Drug Administration approval suggested a very small increase in the absolute risk of a suicide attempt with second-generation antidepressants (odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.09-2.15]; n = 40 857; 0.7% of antidepressant users had a suicide attempt vs 0.3% of placebo users; median follow-up, 8 weeks). Twenty-seven studies (n = 24 826) addressed suicide risk. One randomized clinical trial (n=443) of a suicide risk screening intervention found no difference in suicidal ideation after 2 weeks between primary care patients who were and were not screened for suicide risk. Three studies of suicide risk test accuracy were included; none included replication of any instrument. The included suicide prevention studies generally did not demonstrate an improvement over usual care, which typically included specialty mental health treatment.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evidence supported depression screening in primary care settings, including during pregnancy and postpartum. There are numerous important gaps in the evidence for suicide risk screening in primary care settings.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Effectiveness of interventions designed to mitigate the negative health outcomes of informal caregiving to older adults: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

This umbrella review aimed to evaluate whether certain interventions can mitigate the negative health consequences of caregiving, which interventions are more effective than others depending on the circumstances, and how these interventions are experienced by caregivers themselves.

DESIGN

An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

Quantitative (with or without meta-analyses), qualitative and mixed-methods systematic reviews were included.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Reviews were considered eligible if they met the following criteria: included primary studies targeting informal (ie, unpaid) caregivers of older people or persons presenting with ageing-related diseases; focused on support interventions and assessed their effectiveness (quantitative reviews) or their implementation and/or lived experience of the target population (qualitative reviews); included physical or mental health-related outcomes of informal caregivers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A total of 47 reviews were included, covering 619 distinct primary studies. Each potentially eligible review underwent critical appraisal and citation overlap assessment. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and cross-checked. Quantitative review results were synthesised narratively and presented in tabular format, while qualitative findings were compiled using the mega-aggregation framework synthesis method.

RESULTS

The evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions on physical and mental health outcomes was inconclusive. Quantitative reviews were highly discordant, whereas qualitative reviews only reported practical, emotional and relational benefits. Multicomponent and person-centred interventions seemed to yield highest effectiveness and acceptability. Heterogeneity among caregivers, care receivers and care contexts was often overlooked. Important issues related to the low quality of evidence and futile overproduction of similar reviews were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of robust evidence calls for better intervention research and evaluation practices. It may be warranted to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches to intervention design. Primary care and other existing resources should be leveraged to support interventions, possibly with increasing contributions from the non-profit sector.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021252841; BMJ Open: doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053117.

Pilates and multiple health outcomes: An umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence of associations between Pilates and multiple health outcomes, and evaluate the strength and validity of these associations.

DESIGN

Unbrella review.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February, 2023. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 and the certainty of evidence was graded by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. We recalculated each outcome using random-effects models with standardized mean difference.

RESULTS

We identified 27 systematic reviews with meta-analyses in this umbrella review. 1 was rated as high quality, 1 as moderate quality, 15 as low quality, and 10 as critically low quality. These studies focused on the populations with diseases of the circulatory system, endocrine, nutritional or metabolic diseases, genitourinary system diseases, mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental disorder, musculoskeletal system diseases, neoplasms, nervous system diseases, sleep-wake function disorder and others. Compared with inactive/active intervention, Pilates can reduce body mass index and body fat percentage, relieve pain and disability, and improve sleep quality and balance. The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate for these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pilates showed benefits on several health outcomes related with low back pain, neck pain and scoliosis. However, the certainty of the evidence was mostly low; further high quality randomized controlled trials are needed to elucidate and support these promising findings.

Mediterranean diet and risk of breast cancer: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

The Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet) is a healthy dietary pattern which has been related to a lower risk of certain chronic diseases, such as some cancers. However, its role in breast cancer development remains unclear. This umbrella review aims to summarize the highest available evidence on MedDiet and breast cancer risk.

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic platforms were searched for relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The selection criteria included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis including women aged 18 years or older which evaluated the adherence to a MedDiet as the exposure and incidence of breast cancer as the outcome variable. Overlapping and quality of the reviews using AMSTAR-2 tool were independently assessed by two authors.

RESULTS

Five systematic reviews and six systematic reviews with meta-analysis were included. Overall, 4 systematic reviews - two with and two without meta-analysis - were rated as of high quality. An inverse association was found in 5 of the 9 reviews which evaluated the role of MedDiet on the risk of total breast cancer. The meta-analyses showed moderate-high heterogeneity. The risk reduction seemed to be more consistent among postmenopausal women. No association was found for MedDiet among premenopausal women.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this umbrella review suggest that adherence to a MedDiet pattern had a protective effect on the risk of breast cancer, especially for postmenopausal breast cancer. The stratification of breast cancer cases and conducting high-quality reviews are aspects needed to overcome the current results' heterogeneity and to improve knowledge in this field.

Symptom-specific non-pharmacological interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

There are various non-pharmacological interventions for dementia care. However, healthcare providers continue to face challenges in determining the most suitable interventions for the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), which vary according to individuals. This umbrella review aims to identify and summarise the effective non-pharmacological interventions for each sub-symptom to provide individualised, evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This review follows the guideline of the Cochrane methodology for umbrella reviews. It focuses only on systematic reviews (SRs) with or without a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Five electronic databases: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Database, will be searched. The screened SRs will be determined for eligibility by the PICO formulation: (Population) older adults with dementia of any type; (Intervention) all types of non-pharmacological intervention; (Comparison) usual care or other non-pharmacological intervention; and (Outcome) BPSD and its sub-symptoms. The quality of the individual SRs will be appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. The overlap of primary studies will also be considered by eliminating an old-date SR conducted by the same authors with the same interest and calculating the Corrected Covered Area. Data will be extracted according to the pre-determined formula, which will organise non-pharmacological interventions according to the sub-symptoms of BPSD and not according to the type of intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Since this is a review paper, ethical approval is not required. The findings of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022340930.

Overview of Systematic Reviews of Health Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Children

(1) Background: The importance of studying the health interventions used to prevent and treat overweight and obesity in school-aged children is imperative. This overview aimed to summarize systematic reviews that assess the effects of school-based, family, and mixed health interventions for preventing and treating overweight and obesity in school-aged children. (2) Methods: The Cochrane Collaboration methodology and PRISMA statement were followed. A search was conducted using terms adapted to 12 databases. Systematic reviews reporting interventions in children from six to 12 years old with an outcome related to preventing or treating obesity and overweight were included. Studies with pharmacological or surgical interventions and adolescents were excluded. (3) Results: A total of 15,226 registers were identified from databases and citation searching. Of those, ten systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2022 were included. After the overlap, 331 interventions for children between 6 and 12 years old were identified, and 61.6% involved physical activity and nutrition/diet intervention. Multicomponent intervention, combining physical activity with nutrition and behavioral change, school-based plus community-based interventions may be more effective in reducing overweight and obesity in children. (4) Conclusions: Plenty of interventions for childhood overweight and obesity aimed at prevention and treatment were identified, but there is a gap in the methodological quality preventing the establishment of a certain recommendation.

Clinical Effectiveness of Dry Needling in Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain-An Umbrella Review

The number of systematic reviews (SR) summarizing the literature regarding the clinical effects of Dry Needling (DN) has increased rapidly. Yet, rigorous evidence about the clinical effectiveness of this technique is still lacking. The aim of this umbrella review is to summarize the evidence about the clinical effects of trigger point DN on musculoskeletal disorders across all body regions. PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched to identify SRs examining the effect of DN (as a stand-alone intervention or combined with another treatment modality) compared to sham/no intervention or a physical therapy (PT) intervention with at least one clinical outcome in the domain of pain or physical functioning. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Quantification of the overlap in primary studies was calculated using the corrected covered area (CCA). The electronic search yielded 2286 results, of which 36 SRs were included in this review. Overall, DN is superior to sham/no intervention and equally effective to other interventions for pain reduction at short-term regardless of the body region. Some SRs favored wet needling (WN) over DN for short-term pain reductions. Results on physical functioning outcomes were contradictory across body regions. Limited data is available for mid- and long-term effects. DN has a short-term analgesic effect in all body regions and may be of additional value to the interventions that are used to date in clinical practice. Several studies have shown an additional treatment effect when combining DN to physiotherapeutic interventions compared to these interventions in isolation. There is a substantial need for the standardization of DN protocols to address the problem of heterogeneity and to strengthen the current evidence.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Introduction to Umbrella Reviews as a Useful Evidence-Based Practice

The umbrella review (UR) is a novel methodological approach that has been established to address the ever-expanding research volume of published systematic reviews. In this study, we examined the rationale underlying URs, the concepts and goals of URs, and their applicability in clinical settings. Additionally, we briefly assessed the process of conducting URs and discussed the current challenges in this regard. URs are used to integrate, evaluate, and synthesize the findings of related systematic reviews. By organizing and summarizing the abundant information in accordance with the level of evidence, URs can serve as a useful methodological tool and provide appropriate entry points to clinicians or decision-makers in the medical field. Considering the availability of many suitable interventions for specific conditions in a broad field, URs can enable evidence-based decision-making and offer a broad perspective for the resolution of issues in healthcare by summarizing the evidence and providing directions on a variety of topics. URs are clearly contributing to the management of the deluge of evidence in evidence-based medicine. However, despite the availability of several directions for conducting URs, some points of confusion persist, especially when determining the certainty of evidence. Therefore, advanced guidelines for the appropriate performance of URs are required to provide more reliable evidence through URs.

Rapid evidence synthesis to enable innovation and adoption in health and social care

BACKGROUND

The rapid identification and adoption of effective innovations in healthcare is a known challenge. The strongest evidence base for innovations can be provided by evidence synthesis, but this is frequently a lengthy process and even rapid versions of this can be time-consuming and complex. In the UK, the Accelerated Access Review and Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) have provided the impetus to develop a consistently rapid process to support the identification and adoption of high-value innovations in the English NHS.

METHODS

The Greater Manchester Applied Research Collaboration (ARC-GM) developed a framework for a rapid evidence synthesis (RES) approach, which is highly integrated within the innovation process of the Greater Manchester AHSN and the associated healthcare and research ecosystem. The RES uses evidence synthesis approaches and draws on the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to provide rapid assessments of the existing evidence and its relevance to specific decision problems. We implemented this in a real-time context of decision-making around adoption of innovative health technologies.

RESULTS

Key stakeholders in the Greater Manchester decision-making process for healthcare innovations have found that our approach is both timely and flexible; it is valued for its combination of rigour and speed. Our RES approach rapidly and systematically identifies, appraises and contextualises relevant evidence, which can then be transparently incorporated into decisions about the wider adoption of innovations. The RES also identifies limitations in existing evidence for innovations and this can inform subsequent evaluations. There is substantial interest from other ARCs and AHSNs in implementing a similar process. We are currently exploring methods to make completed RES publicly available. We are also exploring methods to evaluate the impact of using RES as more implementation decisions are made.

CONCLUSIONS

The RES framework we have implemented combines transparency and consistency with flexibility and rapidity. It therefore maximises utility in a real-time decision-making context for healthcare innovations.

Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review

Participation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) entails taking part in the discovery of effects of health care interventions. The question of whether participants' outcomes are different to those of non-participants remains controversial. This umbrella review was aimed at assessing whether there are health benefits of participation in RCTs, compared to non-participation. After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42021287812), we searched the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 2022 to identify relevant systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Data extraction and study quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were performed by two independent reviewers. Of 914 records, six systematic reviews summarising 380 comparisons of RCT participants with non-participants met the inclusion criteria. In two reviews, the majority of comparisons were in favour of participation in RCTs. Of the total of comparisons, 69 (18.7%) were in favour of participation, reporting statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, 264 (71.7%) comparisons were not statistically significant, and 35 (9.5%) comparisons were in favour of non-participation. None of the reviews found a harmful effect of participation in RCTs. Our findings suggest that taking part in RCTs may be beneficial compared to non-participation.

Overview of systematic reviews of health interventions that aim to prevent and treat overweight and obesity among children

BACKGROUND

Childhood overweight and obesity is a global public health issue. Although there is evidence of a reduced prevalence in some countries, there is still much controversy about the efficacy of health interventions that aim to prevent and treat obesity in this specific population. The objective of the present study is to develop an overview of systematic reviews (OSRs) that assesses the effects of school-based, family, and multi-component health interventions for the prevention and treatment of obesity, change in physical activity, dietary, and/or hydration behaviors, and change in metabolic risk factors in school-aged children.

METHODS

This protocol was developed using the methodology proposed by Cochrane. It outlines a comprehensive search in 12 electronic databases to identify systematic reviews of health interventions, including studies that evaluate and how to prevent and/or treat overweight and/or obesity in children aged 6 to 12 years. The risk of bias of the included Systematic Reviews will be assessed with the ROBIS tool.

DISCUSSION

Since the OSRs methodology's purpose is only to harmonize evidence from open access publications, ethical consent is not necessary for the present protocol. In terms of diffusion, a paper will be submitted for publication in a scientific journal to describe the main results obtained through the OSRs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present overview of the systematic review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (ID number 218296).

Pharmacological treatment for connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung involvement: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the most important pulmonary manifestation of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) since it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. However, there is uncertainty on what constitutes the optimal treatment options from a variety of competing interventions. The aim of the overview is to summarize existing evidence of the effectiveness and harm of pharmacological therapies for adults with CTD-ILD.

METHODS

A literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Health Technology Assessment database, Epistemonikos.org, KSR Evidence, and PROSPERO. We will search for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that examine pharmacological treatment for CTD-ILD. Updated supplemental search will also be undertaken to identify additional randomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes will be changes in lung function measures and adverse events. The methodological quality of the included reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The overall quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE rating. Summarized outcome data extracted from systematic reviews will be described in narrative form or in tables. For each meta-analysis we will estimate the summary effect size by use of random-effects and fixed-effects models with 95% confidence intervals, the between-study heterogeneity expressed by I², and the 95% prediction interval. If feasible, given sufficient data, network meta-analysis will be conducted to combine direct and indirect evidence of class and agent comparisons.

DISCUSSION

While many factors are crucial in selecting an appropriate treatment for patients with CTD-ILD, evidence for the efficacy and safety of a drug is essential in guiding this decision. Thus, this overview will aid clinicians in balancing the risks versus benefits of the available therapies by providing high-quality evidence to support informed decision-making and may contribute to future guideline development.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

MedRxiv: DOI 10.1101/2022.01.25.22269807 PROSPERO: CRD42022303180.

Association Between Previous Stroke and Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study and an Overall Review of Meta-Analysis

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the association between previous stroke and the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

We included 164 (61.8 ± 13.6 years) patients with COVID-19 in a retrospective study. We evaluated the unadjusted and adjusted associations between previous stroke and severe COVID-19, using a Cox regression model. We conducted an overall review of systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship of previous stroke with the unfavorable COVID-19 outcomes.

Results

The rate of severe COVID-19 in patients with previous stroke was 28.37 per 1,000 patient days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.65–75.59), compared to 3.94 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI: 2.66–5.82) in those without previous stroke (p < 0.001). Previous stroke was significantly associated with severe COVID-19 using a Cox regression model (unadjusted [hazard ratio, HR]: 6.98, 95% CI: 2.42–20.16, p < 0.001; adjusted HR [per additional 10 years]: 4.62, 95% CI: 1.52–14.04, p = 0.007). An overall review of systematic review and meta-analysis showed that previous stroke was significantly associated with severe COVID-19, mortality, need for intensive care unit admission, use of mechanical ventilation, and an unfavorable composite outcome.

Conclusion

Previous stroke seems to influence the course of COVID-19 infection; such patients are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and might benefit from early hospital treatment measures and preventive strategies.

Effectiveness of interventions for dry eye: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Dry eye is a leading cause of ocular morbidity and economic and societal burden for patients and healthcare systems. There are several treatment options available for dry eye and high-quality systematic reviews synthesise the evidence for their effectiveness and potential harms.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite (CEV@US) database of eyes and vision systematic reviews for systematic reviews on interventions for dry eye. CEV@US conducted an initial search of PubMed and Embase to populate the CEV@US database of eyes and vision systematic reviews in 2007, which was updated most recently in August 2021. We will search the database for systematic reviews published since 1 January 2016 because systematic reviews more than 5 years are unlikely to be up to date. We will consider Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews eligible for inclusion. Two authors will independently screen articles. We will include studies that evaluate interventions for dry eye and/or meibomian gland dysfunction with no restriction on types of participants or review language. We will select reliable systematic reviews (ie, those meeting pre-established methodological criteria) for inclusion, assessed by one investigator and verified by a second investigator. We will extract ratings of the certainty of evidence from within each review. We will report the degree of overlap for systematic reviews that answer similar questions and include overlapping primary studies. We will present results of the overview in alignment with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Online Chapter 5: Overviews of Reviews), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and an overview of reviews quality and transparency checklist. The anticipated start and completion dates for this overview are 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, respectively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This overview will not require the approval of an Ethics Committee because it will use published studies. We will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021279880.

The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: an overview

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews.

RESULTS

Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13-14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.

Late pregnancy ultrasound parameters identifying fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a protocol for a systematic review of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Stillbirths and neonatal deaths are leading contributors to the global burden of disease and pregnancy ultrasound has the potential to help decrease this burden. In the absence of high-Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence on universal obstetric ultrasound screening at or close to term, many different screening strategies have been proposed. Systematic reviews have rapidly increased over the past decade owing to the diverse nature of ultrasound parameters and the wide range of possible adverse perinatal outcomes. This systematic review will summarise the evidence on key ultrasound parameters in the published literature to help develop an obstetric ultrasound protocol that identifies pregnancies at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes at or close to term.

METHODS

This study will follow the recent Cochrane guidelines for a systematic review of systematic reviews. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted using Embase (OvidSP), Medline (OvidSP), CDSR, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Scopus. Systematic reviews evaluating at least one ultrasound parameter in late pregnancy to detect pregnancies at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen, assess the quality including the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool, and extract data from eligible systematic reviews that meet the study inclusion criteria. Overlapping data will be assessed and managed with decision rules, and study evidence including the GRADE assessment of the certainty of results will be presented as a narrative synthesis as described in the Cochrane guidelines for an overview of reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research uses publicly available published data; thus, an ethics committee review is not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021266108.

The role of diet in renal cell carcinoma incidence: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Evidence associating diet with the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is inconclusive. We aimed to summarize evidence associating dietary factors with RCC incidence and assess the strength and validity of this evidence.

METHODS

We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews or meta-analyses (SRoMAs) that assessed the association between diet and RCC incidence. Through April 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and WCRF were searched. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and appraised the quality of SRoMAs. According to credibility assessment criteria, evidence can be divided into five categories: convincing (class I), highly suggestive (class II), suggestive (class III), weak (class IV), and nonsignificant (class V).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine meta-analyses were obtained after screening. After excluding 7 overlapping meta-analyses, 22 meta-analyses including 502 individual studies and 64 summary hazard ratios for RCC incidence were included: dietary patterns or dietary quality indices (n = 6), foods (n = 13), beverages (n = 4), alcohol (n = 7), macronutrients (n =15), and micronutrients (n =19). No meta-analyses had high methodological quality. Five meta-analyses exhibited small study effects; one meta-analysis showed evidence of excess significance bias. No dietary factors showed convincing or highly suggestive evidence of association with RCC in the overall analysis. Two protective factors had suggestive evidence (vegetables (0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.86) and vitamin C (0.77, 0.66 to 0.90)) in overall analysis. One protective factor had convincing evidence (moderate drinking (0.77, 0.70 to 0.84)) in Europe and North America and one protective factor had highly suggestive evidence (cruciferous vegetables (0.78, 0.70 to 0.86)) in North America.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many meta-analyses have assessed associations between dietary factors and RCC, no high-quality evidence exists (classes I and II) in the overall analysis. Increased intake of vegetables and vitamin C is negatively associated with RCC risk. Moderate drinking might be beneficial for Europeans and North Americans, and cruciferous vegetables might be beneficial to North Americans, but the results should be interpreted with caution. More researches are needed in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021246619.