1
|
Iannizzi C, Akl EA, Anslinger E, Weibel S, Kahale LA, Aminat AM, Piechotta V, Skoetz N. Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev 2023; 12:238. [PMID: 38098023 PMCID: PMC10722674 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02396-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance. METHODS A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word. RESULTS Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR. CONCLUSION Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Iannizzi
- Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Eva Anslinger
- Evidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany
| | - Stephanie Weibel
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Lara A Kahale
- Editorial and Methods Department, Cochrane Central Executive, Cochrane, St Albans House, 57-59 Haymarket, London, SW1Y 4QX, UK
| | - Abina Mosunmola Aminat
- Rafic Hariri School of Nursing, American University of Beirut, Riad El Solh, P.O. Box 11-0236, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Vanessa Piechotta
- Evidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Metzendorf MI, Weibel S, Reis S, McDonald S. Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28:267-272. [PMID: 36351782 PMCID: PMC10423469 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an increasingly common approach to keeping reviews up to date, in which new relevant studies are incorporated as they become available, so as to inform healthcare policy and practice in a timely manner. While journal publishers have been exploring the publication of LSRs using different updating and publishing approaches, readers cannot currently assess if the evidence underpinning a published LSR is up to date, as neither the search details, the selection process, nor the list of identified studies is made available between the publication of updates. We describe a new method to transparently report the living evidence surveillance process that occurs between published LSR versions. We use the example of the living Cochrane Review on nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir (Paxlovid) for preventing and treating COVID-19 to illustrate how this can work in practice. We created a publicly accessible spreadsheet on the Open Science Framework platform, linking to the living Cochrane Review, that details the search and study selection process, enabling readers to track the progress of eligible ongoing or completed studies. Further automation of the evidence surveillance process should be explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria-Inti Metzendorf
- Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Stephanie Weibel
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Stefanie Reis
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Steve McDonald
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Akl EA, El Khoury R, Khamis AM, El Mikati IK, Pardo-Hernandez H, Farran S, Ibrahim R, Khamis M, Hneiny L, Schunemann HJ, Kahale LA. The life and death of living systematic reviews: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 156:11-21. [PMID: 36764466 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are to describe the characteristics of living systematic reviews (LSRs) and to understand their life cycles. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a comprehensive search up to April 2021 then selected articles and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We undertook descriptive analyses and calculated delay in version update and delay since the last published version. RESULTS We included 76 eligible LSRs with a total of 279 eligible versions. The majority of LSRs was from the clinical field (70%), was COVID-19 related (63%), and had a funding source specified (62%). The median number of versions per LSR was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-4; range 1-19). The median and IQR for the ratio of the actual period of update to the planned period of update was 1.12 (0.81; 1.71). Out of all reviews with a 'planned period of update' and at least one update (N = 19), eight LSRs (42%) had a period since last published version greater than 3 times the planned period of update. No LSR included a 'retirement notice' in their latest published version. CONCLUSION While most LSR complied with the planned period of producing updates, a substantive proportion lagged since their last update.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elie A Akl
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Rayane El Khoury
- Infectious Disease Epidemiology Group, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation - Education City, Doha, Qatar; World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Disease Epidemiology Analytics on HIV/AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and Viral Hepatitis, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation - Education City, Doha, Qatar
| | - Assem M Khamis
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
| | - Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Hector Pardo-Hernandez
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute, Barcelona, C/Sant Quintí, Spain; CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Av. de Monforte de Lemos, 5, 28029 Spain
| | - Sarah Farran
- Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Riad El Solh, 1107 2020 Lebanon
| | | | - Mohamed Khamis
- Emergency Medicine Department, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Riad El Solh, 1107 2020 Lebanon
| | - Layal Hneiny
- Wegner Health Sciences Library, University of South Dakota, 1400 W 22nd St, Sioux Falls, SD 57106, USA
| | - Holger J Schunemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Ontario, Canada; MGD DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McGRADE Centers, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Canada; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090 Pieve Emanuele (Milano), Italy; Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Lara A Kahale
- Cochrane Central Executive, Cochrane, London, St Albans House, 57-59, Haymarket, London SW1Y 4QX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kahale LA, Piechotta V, McKenzie JE, Dorando E, Iannizzi C, Barker JM, Page MJ, Skoetz N, Akl EA. Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs): protocol. F1000Res 2022; 11:109. [PMID: 38813137 PMCID: PMC11134135 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.75449.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/09/2022] [Indexed: 05/31/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: While the PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to guide the reporting of original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, and living systematic reviews (LSRs), its explanation and elaboration document notes that additional considerations for updated systematic reviews and LSRs may need to be addressed. This paper reports the protocol for developing an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. Methods: We will follow the EQUATOR Network's guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines. We will review the literature to identify possible items of the PRISMA 2020 checklist that need modification, as well as new items that need to be added. Then, we will survey representatives of different stakeholder groups for their views on the proposed modifications of the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We will summarize, present, and discuss the results of the survey in an online meeting, aiming to reach consensus on the content of the LSR extension. We will then draft the checklist, explanation and elaboration for each item, and flow diagram for the PRISMA 2020 extension. Then, we will share these initial documents with stakeholder representatives for final feedback and approval. Discussion: We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 extension for LSRs will benefit LSR authors, editors, and peer reviewers of LSRs, as well as different users of LSRs, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Vanessa Piechotta
- Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cologne, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Joanne E McKenzie
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Elena Dorando
- Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cologne, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Claire Iannizzi
- Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cologne, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Matthew J Page
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cologne, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Turner T, Elliott J, Tendal B, Vogel JP, Norris S, Tate R, Green S. The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0261479. [PMID: 34995312 PMCID: PMC8741039 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project. Methods The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data. Results An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified. Conclusions In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tari Turner
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | - Julian Elliott
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- Infectious Diseases Unit, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Britta Tendal
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Joshua P. Vogel
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sarah Norris
- School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rhiannon Tate
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sally Green
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ipekci AM, Buitrago-Garcia D, Meili KW, Krauer F, Prajapati N, Thapa S, Wildisen L, Araujo-Chaveron L, Baumann L, Shah S, Whiteley T, Solís-García G, Tsotra F, Zhelyazkov I, Imeri H, Low N, Counotte MJ. Outbreaks of publications about emerging infectious diseases: the case of SARS-CoV-2 and Zika virus. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021; 21:50. [PMID: 33706715 PMCID: PMC7948668 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01244-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Accepted: 03/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Outbreaks of infectious diseases generate outbreaks of scientific evidence. In 2016 epidemics of Zika virus emerged, and in 2020, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared patterns of scientific publications for the two infections to analyse the evolution of the evidence. METHODS We annotated publications on Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 that we collected using living evidence databases according to study design. We used descriptive statistics to categorise and compare study designs over time. RESULTS We found 2286 publications about Zika virus in 2016 and 21,990 about SARS-CoV-2 up to 24 May 2020, of which we analysed a random sample of 5294 (24%). For both infections, there were more epidemiological than laboratory science studies. Amongst epidemiological studies for both infections, case reports, case series and cross-sectional studies emerged first, cohort and case-control studies were published later. Trials were the last to emerge. The number of preprints was much higher for SARS-CoV-2 than for Zika virus. CONCLUSIONS Similarities in the overall pattern of publications might be generalizable, whereas differences are compatible with differences in the characteristics of a disease. Understanding how evidence accumulates during disease outbreaks helps us understand which types of public health questions we can answer and when.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aziz Mert Ipekci
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Diana Buitrago-Garcia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Graduate School of Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Fabienne Krauer
- Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Nirmala Prajapati
- École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique (EHESP), Saint Denis, France
| | - Shabnam Thapa
- Institute of Public Health, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland
| | - Lea Wildisen
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Lukas Baumann
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kantonsspital Olten, Olten, Switzerland
| | - Sanam Shah
- École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique (EHESP), Saint Denis, France
| | - Tessa Whiteley
- École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique (EHESP), Saint Denis, France
| | - Gonzalo Solís-García
- Pediatrics Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Foteini Tsotra
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Ivan Zhelyazkov
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Hira Imeri
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicola Low
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tendal B, Vogel JP, McDonald S, Norris S, Cumpston M, White H, Leder K, Navarro DF, Cheyne S, Chakraborty S, Murano M, Millard T, Callesen HE, Islam RM, Elliott J, Turner T. Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 131:11-21. [PMID: 33188858 PMCID: PMC7657075 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2020] [Revised: 10/06/2020] [Accepted: 11/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Background and Objectives The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. Methods The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. Results : The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. Conclusions The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Britta Tendal
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Joshua P Vogel
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Steve McDonald
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sarah Norris
- School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Miranda Cumpston
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Heath White
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Karin Leder
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - David Fraile Navarro
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Saskia Cheyne
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Melissa Murano
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Tanya Millard
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Rakibul M Islam
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Julian Elliott
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Infectious Diseases Unit, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Tari Turner
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|