Endovascular thrombectomy with or without thrombolysis bridging in patients with acute ischaemic stroke: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis of randomised trials and cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current published guidelines and meta-analyses comparing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone versus EVT with bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) suggest that EVT alone is non-inferior to EVT with bridging thrombolysis in achieving favourable functional outcome. Because of this controversy, we aimed to systematically update the evidence and meta-analyse data from randomised trials comparing EVT alone versus EVT with bridging thrombolysis, and performed an economic evaluation comparing both strategies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing EVT with or without bridging thrombolysis in patients presenting with large vessel occlusions. We will identify eligible studies by systematically searching the following databases from inception without any language restrictions: MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase and the Cochrane Library. The following criteria will be used to assess eligibility for inclusion: (1) adult patients ≥18 years old; (2) randomised patients to EVT alone or to EVT with IVT; and (3) measured outcomes, including functional outcomes, at least 90 days after randomisation. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the identified articles, extract information and assess the risk of bias of eligible studies. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool to evaluate risk of bias. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome. We will then perform an economic evaluation based on the extracted data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will not require a research ethics approval because no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and via presentation at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022315608.

The life and death of living systematic reviews: a methodological survey

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.

Inspiratory muscle training, with or without concomitant pulmonary rehabilitation, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) aims to improve respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Clinical trials used various training protocols, devices and respiratory measurements to check the effectiveness of this intervention. The current guidelines reported a possible advantage of IMT, particularly in people with respiratory muscle weakness. However, it remains unclear to what extent IMT is clinically beneficial, especially when associated with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).   OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as a stand-alone intervention and when combined with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 20 October 2021. We also checked reference lists of all primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IMT in combination with PR versus PR alone and IMT versus control/sham. We included different types of IMT irrespective of the mode of delivery. We excluded trials that used resistive devices without controlling the breathing pattern or a training load of less than 30% of maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax), or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane including assessment of risk of bias with RoB 2. Our primary outcomes were dyspnea, functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 55 RCTs in this review. Both IMT and PR protocols varied significantly across the trials, especially in training duration, loads, devices, number/ frequency of sessions and the PR programs. Only eight trials were at low risk of bias. PR+IMT versus PR We included 22 trials (1446 participants) in this comparison. Based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of -1 unit, we did not find an improvement in dyspnea assessed with the Borg scale at submaximal exercise capacity (mean difference (MD) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to 0.79; 2 RCTs, 202 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).   We also found no improvement in dyspnea assessed with themodified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) according to an MCID between -0.5 and -1 unit (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.14; 2 RCTs, 204 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Pooling evidence for the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) showed an increase of 5.95 meters (95% CI -5.73 to 17.63; 12 RCTs, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and failed to reach the MCID of 26 meters. In subgroup analysis, we divided the RCTs according to the training duration and mean baseline PImax. The test for subgroup differences was not significant. Trials at low risk of bias (n = 3) demonstrated a larger effect estimate than the overall. The summary effect of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) revealed an overall total score below the MCID of 4 units (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.20; 7 RCTs, 908 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The summary effect of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) did not show an improvement in the HRQoL (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.80 to 1.06; 2 RCTs, 657 participants; very low-certainty evidence), according to an MCID of -1.6 units.  Pooling the RCTs that reported PImax showed an increase of 11.46 cmH₂O (95% CI 7.42 to 15.50; 17 RCTs, 1329 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but failed to reach the MCID of 17.2 cmH₂O.  In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness.  One abstract reported some adverse effects that were considered "minor and self-limited". IMT versus control/sham Thirty-seven RCTs with 1021 participants contributed to our second comparison. There was a trend towards an improvement when Borg was calculated at submaximal exercise capacity (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.51; 6 RCTs, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial was at a low risk of bias. Eight studies (nine arms) used the Baseline Dyspnea Index - Transition Dyspnea Index (BDI-TDI). Based on an MCID of +1 unit, they showed an improvement only with the 'total score' of the TDI (MD 2.98, 95% CI 2.07 to 3.89; 8 RCTs, 238 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find a difference between studies classified as with and without respiratory muscle weakness. Only one trial was at low risk of bias. Four studies reported the mMRC, revealing a possible improvement in dyspnea in the IMT group (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.43; 4 RCTs, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two trials were at low risk of bias. Compared to control/sham, the MD in the 6MWD following IMT was 35.71 (95% CI 25.68 to 45.74; 16 RCTs, 501 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies were at low risk of bias. In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness.  Six studies reported theSGRQ total score, showing a larger effect in the IMT group (MD -3.85, 95% CI -8.18 to 0.48; 6 RCTs, 182 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded the MCID of -4 units. Only one study was at low risk of bias. There was an improvement in life quality with CAT (MD -2.97, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.10; 2 RCTs, 86 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial was at low risk of bias. Thirty-two RCTs reported PImax, showing an improvement without reaching the MCID (MD 14.57 cmH₂O, 95% CI 9.85 to 19.29; 32 RCTs, 916 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness.   None of the included RCTs reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IMT may not improve dyspnea, functional exercise capacity and life quality when associated with PR. However, IMT is likely to improve these outcomes when provided alone. For both interventions, a larger effect in participants with respiratory muscle weakness and with longer training durations is still to be confirmed.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care

BACKGROUND

Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care.

DESIGN

First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders.

SETTING

International.

PARTICIPANTS

Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication.

LIMITATION

This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented.

CONCLUSION

The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Long Term Weight Loss Diets and Obesity Indices: Results of a Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Scientists have been investigating efficient interventions to prevent and manage obesity. This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the effect of different diets [moderate macronutrients (MMs), low fat/high carbohydrate (LFHC), high fat/low carbohydrate (HFLC), and usual diet (UD)] on weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference (WC) changes at ≥12 months.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed databases, and the Cochrane Library. We systematically assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dietary interventions on adults (mean BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) receiving active dietary counseling for ≥12 months. We pooled the data using a random-effect NMA. We assessed the quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool.

Results

We included 36 trials, 14 of which compared HFLC with MM diets. Compared with UD, all diets were associated with a significant weight loss (WL) at ≥12 months, HFLC [mean difference in kg (95% CI): −5.5 (−7.6; −3.4)], LFHC [−5.0 (−7.1; −2.9)] and MM [−4.7 (−6.8; −2.7)]. HFLC, compared with MM diet, was associated with a slightly higher WL (of −0.77 kg) and drop in BMI (of −0.36 kg/m²), while no significant difference was detected in other dietary comparisons. WC was lower with all diets compared to UD, with no significant difference across specific diets. There was no significant interaction of the results with the pre-specified sub-groups. The ROB was moderate to high, mostly related to unclear allocation concealment, high dropout rate and unclear or lack of blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Conclusion

Dietary interventions extending over ≥12 months are superior to UD in inducing weight, BMI and WC loss. HFLC might be associated with a slightly higher WL compared with MM diets.

Systematic Trial Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=103116, PROSPERO (CRD42018103116).

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Abdominal Visceral Adipose Tissue and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Increased abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) implies an adverse cardio-metabolic profile. We examined the association of abdominal VAT parameters and all-cause mortality risk.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases. We performed citations/articles screening, data abstraction, and quality assessment in duplicate and independently (CRD42020205021).

RESULTS

We included 12 cohorts, the majority used computed tomography to assess abdominal VAT area. Six cohorts with a mean age ≤ 65 years, examining all-cause mortality risk per increment in VAT area (cm²) or volume (cm³), showed a 11-98% relative risk increase with higher VAT parameters. However, the association lost significance after adjusting for glycemic indices, body mass index, or other fat parameters. In 4 cohorts with a mean age >65 years, the findings on mortality were inconsistent. Conversely, in two cohorts (mean age 73-77 years), a higher VAT density, was inversely proportional to VAT area, and implied a higher mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

A high abdominal VAT area seems to be associated with increased all-cause mortality in individuals ≤ 65 years, possibly mediated by metabolic complications, and not through an independent effect. This relationship is weaker and may reverse in older individuals, most likely secondary to confounding bias and reverse causality. An individual participant data meta-analysis is needed to confirm our findings, and to define an abdominal VAT area cutoff implying increased mortality risk.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=205021, identifier CRD42020205021.

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021).

Review methods

Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis.

Results

Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities: a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are uncertainties about mitigating strategies for swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an opportunity to learn from the experience of previous re-openings to better plan the future one. Our objectives are to systematically review the evidence on (1) the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission; and (2) the effects of strategies for preventing COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid systematic review. We searched in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 19, 2021. We included non-randomized studies for the review on association of COVID-19 transmission and swimming-related activities. We included guidance documents reporting on the strategies for prevention of COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities. We also included studies on the efficacy and safety of the strategies. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility. For the guidance documents, a single reviewer assessed the eligibility and a second reviewer verified the judgement. Teams of two reviewers extracted data independently. We summarized the findings of included studies narratively. We synthesized information from guidance documents according to the identified topics and subtopics, and presented them in tabular and narrative formats.

RESULTS

We identified three studies providing very low certainty evidence for the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission. The analysis of 50 eligible guidance documents identified 11 topics: ensuring social distancing, ensuring personal hygiene, using personal protective equipment, eating and drinking, maintaining the pool, managing frequently touched surfaces, ventilation of indoor spaces, screening and management of sickness, delivering first aid, raising awareness, and vaccination. One study assessing the efficacy of strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission did not find an association between compliance with precautionary restrictions and COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

There are major gaps in the research evidence of relevance to swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the synthesis of the identified strategies from guidance documents can inform public health management strategies for swimming-related activities, particularly in future re-opening plans.

Implementing person-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) into routine palliative care: A protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation of The RESOLVE PCOM Implementation Strategy

INTRODUCTION

Person-centred outcome measures improve quality of care and patient outcomes but are used inconsistently in palliative care practice. To address this implementation gap, we developed the 'RESOLVE Implementation Strategy'. This protocol describes a process evaluation to explore mechanisms through which this strategy does, or does not, support the implementation of outcome measures in routine palliative care practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Multistrand, mixed-methods process evaluation. Strand one will collect routine outcomes data (palliative Phase of Illness, Integrated Palliative care Outcomes Scale, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status) to map the changes in use of outcome measures over 12 months (July 2021-July 2022). Strand two will collect survey data over the same 12-month period to explore how professionals' understandings of, skills in using and ability to build organisational practices around, outcome measures change over time. Strand three will collect interview data to understand the mechanisms underpinning/affecting our implementation strategy. Thematic framework analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, respectively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

For strand one, ethical approval has been obtained (Cambridge REC, REF: 20/EE/0188). For strands two and three, ethical approval has been obtained from Hull York Medical School ethics committee (2105). Tailored feedback of study findings will be provided to participating sites. Abstracts and papers will be submitted to national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Lay and policy briefings and newsletters will be shared through patient and public involvement and project networks, plus via the project website.

Using Parallel Streams of Evidence to Inform Guideline Development: The Case of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis Guideline

Objective

We aim to describe an evidence synthesis approach using parallel streams of evidence that informed the development of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guideline for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

We developed the evidence synthesis approach using parallel streams of evidence in multiple rounds of discussion, piloting, feedback, and revisions. A number of working groups involving ACR staff, content experts, and methodologists coordinated to develop and implement the approach.

Results

We used a major stream of evidence that identified evidence specific to the clinical questions being addressed in the guideline (ie, we were able to match relevant articles to specific questions). We also used additional streams that identified data that applied across multiple questions. We describe in this article the different steps of the major stream, ie, screening and tagging, matching articles to question clusters, matching articles to individual questions, data abstraction and analysis, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADEing). We then describe how we packaged the parallel streams of evidence into standardized structured tables to facilitate formulating the recommendations. These tables included information for the following factors: desirable effects, undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, valuation of outcomes, cost of interventions, and cost‐effectiveness of interventions. The approach allowed us to match eligible articles for 47 of 81 clinical questions. We identified no eligible articles that addressed the remaining 34 questions.

Conclusion

We were successful in using parallel streams of evidence to inform the development of the 2021 ACR guideline for the management of RA.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

Maternal Education and Low Birth Weight in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight (LBW), remain the leading causes of child morbidity and mortality in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the strength and consistency of the association between maternal education and LBW in LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search of studies published between 2000 and 2014 in four databases using three MeSH keywords - birth outcomes including LBW; individual-level socioeconomic measures including maternal education; and a list of LMICs. The methodological quality of each eligible study was evaluated following the GRADE approach. A total of 26 studies were entered into meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed to account for heterogeneity in the measurement of exposure and country development level.

FINDINGS

The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant pooled estimate (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.61-0.74) indicating that maternal education is protective against LBW in LMICs. Heterogeneity was found high in subgroup analyses in studies from lower-middle income countries and in those measuring maternal education in academic classes, but drops considerably in studies from low-income countries and those measuring it in number of years of schooling. The quality of the overall body of evidence is moderate due to high observed heterogeneity in some subgroup analyses and the presence of studies with high risk of bias.

INTERPRETATION

Higher maternal education associates with a moderate but statistically significant decrease in the risk of delivering a LBW infant in LMICs. Enhancing girls' and women's access to education operates through a number of pathways to improve birth outcomes and reduce LBW in LMICs.

Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to April 2021. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 279 living publications relating to 76 LSRs. Of the 279 publications, 11% were protocols, 23% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 50% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 16% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%); all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flow through the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to July 2020. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 108 living publications relating to 32 LSRs. Of the 108 publications, 7% were protocols, 24% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 62% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 7% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%);  all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flow through the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

PRISMA flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to July 2020. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 108 living publications relating to 32 LSRs. Of the 108 publications, 7% were protocols, 24% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 62% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 7% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%);  all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flowthrough the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

Potential impact of missing outcome data on treatment effects in systematic reviews: imputation study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of bias associated with missing outcome data in systematic reviews.

DESIGN

Imputation study.

SETTING

Systematic reviews.

POPULATION

100 systematic reviews that included a group level meta-analysis with a statistically significant effect on a patient important dichotomous efficacy outcome.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Median percentage change in the relative effect estimate when applying each of the following assumption (four commonly discussed but implausible assumptions (best case scenario, none had the event, all had the event, and worst case scenario) and four plausible assumptions for missing data based on the informative missingness odds ratio (IMOR) approach (IMOR 1.5 (least stringent), IMOR 2, IMOR 3, IMOR 5 (most stringent)); percentage of meta-analyses that crossed the threshold of the null effect for each method; and percentage of meta-analyses that qualitatively changed direction of effect for each method. Sensitivity analyses based on the eight different methods of handling missing data were conducted.

RESULTS

100 systematic reviews with 653 randomised controlled trials were included. When applying the implausible but commonly discussed assumptions, the median change in the relative effect estimate varied from 0% to 30.4%. The percentage of meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 1% (best case scenario) to 60% (worst case scenario), and 26% changed direction with the worst case scenario. When applying the plausible assumptions, the median percentage change in relative effect estimate varied from 1.4% to 7.0%. The percentage of meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 6% (IMOR 1.5) to 22% (IMOR 5) of meta-analyses, and 2% changed direction with the most stringent (IMOR 5).

CONCLUSION

Even when applying plausible assumptions to the outcomes of participants with definite missing data, the average change in pooled relative effect estimate is substantive, and almost a quarter (22%) of meta-analyses crossed the threshold of the null effect. Systematic review authors should present the potential impact of missing outcome data on their effect estimates and use this to inform their overall GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) ratings of risk of bias and their interpretation of the results.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

PURPOSE

To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews).

DATA SYNTHESIS

123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs.

LIMITATION

Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported.

CONCLUSION

Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Reporting of conflicts of interest by authors of primary studies on health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and types of conflict of interest (COI) disclosed by authors of primary studies of health policy and systems research (HPSR).

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional survey using standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data extraction. We conducted descriptive analyses.

SETTING

We collected data from papers published in 2016 in 'health policy and service journals' category in Web of Science database.

PARTICIPANTS

We included primary studies (eg, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, qualitative studies) of HPSR published in English in 2016 peer-reviewed health policy and services journals.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Reported COI disclosures including whether authors reported COI or not, form in which COI disclosures were provided, number of authors per paper who report any type of COI, number of authors per paper who report specific types and subtypes of COI.

RESULTS

We included 200 eligible primary studies of which 132 (66%) included COI disclosure statements of authors. Of the 132 studies, 19 (14%) had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI and the most frequently reported type was individual financial COI (n=15, 11%). None of the authors reported individual intellectual COIs or personal COIs. Financial and individual COIs were reported more frequently compared with non-financial and institutional COIs.

CONCLUSION

A low percentage of HPSR primary studies included authors reporting COI. Non-financial or institutional COIs were the least reported types of COI.

Assessing concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases: a systematic survey of the health literature

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study is to review the literature for studies that assessed the concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases and evaluate their methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic survey of the health literature to identify eligible studies. We searched both Medline and EMBASE up to February 2017. We conducted study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment in duplicate and independently using standardized forms. We subcategorized 'nonconcordant disclosures' as either 'partially nonconcordant' or 'completely nonconcordant'. The main outcome was the percentage of authors with 'nonconcordant' disclosures. We summarized results by three levels of analysis: authors, companies, and studies.

RESULTS

We identified 27 eligible journal articles. The top two types of documents assessed were published articles (n = 13) and published guidelines (n = 9). The most commonly used payment database was the Open Payments Database (n = 16). The median percentage of authors with 'nonconcordant' disclosures was 81%; the median percentage was 43% for 'completely nonconcordant' disclosures. The percentage of 'nonconcordant' conflict of interest (COI) reporting by companies varied between 23% and 85%. The methods of concordance assessment, as well as the labeling and definitions of assessed outcomes varied widely across the included studies. We judged three of the included studies as high-quality studies.

CONCLUSION

Underreporting of health science researchers' financial COIs is pervasive. Studies assessing COI underreporting suffer from a number of limitations that could have overestimated their findings.

Meta-Analyses Proved Inconsistent in How Missing Data Were Handled Across Their Included Primary Trials: A Methodological Survey

Background

How systematic review authors address missing data among eligible primary studies remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess whether systematic review authors are consistent in the way they handle missing data, both across trials included in the same meta-analysis, and with their reported methods.

Methods

We first identified 100 eligible systematic reviews that included a statistically significant meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome. Then, we successfully retrieved 638 of the 653 trials included in these systematic reviews’ meta-analyses. From each trial report, we extracted statistical data used in the analysis of the outcome of interest to compare with the data used in the meta-analysis. First, we used these comparisons to classify the “analytical method actually used” for handling missing data by the systematic review authors for each included trial. Second, we assessed whether systematic reviews explicitly reported their analytical method of handling missing data. Third, we calculated the proportion of systematic reviews that were consistent in their “analytical method actually used” across trials included in the same meta-analysis. Fourth, among systematic reviews that were consistent in the “analytical method actually used” across trials and explicitly reported on a method for handling missing data, we assessed whether the “analytical method actually used” and the reported methods were consistent.

Results

We were unable to determine the “analytical method reviews actually used” for handling missing outcome data among 397 trials. Among the remaining 241, systematic review authors most commonly conducted “complete case analysis” (n=128, 53%) or assumed “none of the participants with missing data had the event of interest” (n=58, 24%). Only eight of 100 systematic reviews were consistent in their approach to handling missing data across included trials, but none of these reported methods for handling missing data. Among seven reviews that did explicitly report their analytical method of handling missing data, only one was consistent in their approach across included trials (using complete case analysis), and their approach was inconsistent with their reported methods (assumed all participants with missing data had the event).

Conclusion

The majority of systematic review authors were inconsistent in their approach towards reporting and handling missing outcome data across eligible primary trials, and most did not explicitly report their methods to handle missing data. Systematic review authors should clearly identify missing outcome data among their eligible trials, specify an approach for handling missing data in their analyses, and apply their approach consistently across all primary trials.

Safe management of bodies of deceased persons with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: a rapid systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Proper strategies to minimise the risk of infection in individuals handling the bodies of deceased persons infected with 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) are urgently needed. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to scope and assess the effects of specific strategies for the management of the bodies.

METHODS

We searched five general, three Chinese and four coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-specific electronic databases. We searched registries of clinical trials, websites of governmental and other relevant organisations, reference lists of the included papers and relevant systematic reviews, and Epistemonikos for relevant systematic reviews. We included guidance documents providing practical advice on the handling of bodies of deceased persons with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Then, we sought primary evidence of any study design reporting on the efficacy and safety of the identified strategies in coronaviruses. We included evidence relevant to contextual factors (ie, acceptability). A single reviewer extracted data using a pilot-tested form and graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. A second reviewer verified the data and assessments.

RESULTS

We identified one study proposing an uncommon strategy for autopsies for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. The study provided very low-certainty evidence that it reduced the risk of transmission. We identified 23 guidance documents providing practical advice on the steps of handling the bodies: preparation, packing, and others and advice related to both the handling of the dead bodies and the use of personal protective equipment by individuals handling them. We did not identify COVID-19 evidence relevant to any of these steps.

CONCLUSION

While a substantive number of guidance documents propose specific strategies, we identified no study providing direct evidence for the effects of any of those strategies. While this review highlights major research gaps, it allows interested entities to build their own guidance.

Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review

Background

Patients and consumers are increasingly engaged in health policymaking, research and drug regulation. Having financial relationships with the health industry creates situations of conflicts of interest (COI) and might compromise their meaningful and unbiased participation.

Objective

To synthesize available evidence on the financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE. We selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We reported on outcomes related to financial relationships of individuals with, and/or funding of organizations by the health industry.

Results

We identified a total of 14 510 unique citations, of which 24 reports of 23 studies were eligible. Three studies (13%) addressed the financial relationship of patient and consumer representatives with the health industry. Of these, two examined the proportion of public speakers in drug regulatory processes who have financial relationships; the proportions in the two studies were 25% and 19% respectively. Twenty studies (87%) addressed funding of patient and consumer organizations. The median proportion of organizations that reported funding from the health industry was 62% (IQR: 34%‐69%) in questionnaire surveys, and 75% (IQR: 58%‐85%) in surveys of their websites. Among organizations for which there was evidence of industry funding, a median proportion of 29% (IQR: 27%‐44%) acknowledged on their websites receiving that funding.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations are common and may not be disclosed. Stricter regulation on disclosure and management is needed.

A guidance was developed to identify participants with missing outcome data in randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In order for authors of systematic reviews to address missing data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), they need to first identify the number of trial participants with missing data. The objective of this study was to provide guidance for authors of systematic reviews on how to identify participants with missing outcome data in reports of RCTs.

METHODS

Guidance statements were informed by a review of studies addressing the topic of missing data and an iterative process of feedback and refinement, through meetings involving experts in health research methodology and authors of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

The proposed guidance includes (1) definitions of key terms, (2) 19 categories of participants described in RCT reports and who might have missing data, and (3) a flowchart on how to judge the outcome data missingness for each category. The judgment of missingness relies on how trial authors report on the categories and handle them in their analyses. Practically, for their primary analysis, systematic review authors should choose how to identify participants with missing outcome data (i.e., use either "definitely missing data" or "total possible missing data"), then select a method for handling missing data in meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to explore consistency with competing options for classifying patients as having missing data.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the proposed guidance will help promote transparency and consistency regarding how missing data are managed in systematic reviews.

Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings.

Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’.

Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an 'LSR methods repository'. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in people with an ischaemic cardiomyopathy improves survival rate. The evidence supporting this intervention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is not as definitive, with the recently published DANISH trial finding no improvement in survival rate. A systematic review of all eligible studies was needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using ICDs for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of using compared to not using ICD for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving optimal medical therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection on 10 October 2018. For ongoing or unpublished clinical trials, we searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry. To identify economic evaluation studies, we conducted a separate search to 31 March 2015 of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and from March 2015 to October 2018 on MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults with chronic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy due to a left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 35% or less (New York Heart Association (NYHA) type I-IV). Participants in the intervention arm should have received ICD in addition to optimal medical therapy, while those in the control arm received optimal medical therapy alone. We included studies with cardiac resynchronisation therapy when it was appropriately balanced in the experimental and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death, and adverse events associated with the intervention. The secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular death, health-related quality of life, hospitalisation for heart failure, first ICD-related hospitalisation, and cost. We abstracted the log (hazard ratio) and its variance from trial reports for time-to-event survival data. We extracted the raw data necessary to calculate the risk ratio. We summarised data on quality of life and cost-effectiveness narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible randomised trials with a total of 3128 participants. The use of ICD plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone decreases the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 3128; studies = 6; high-certainty evidence). An average of 24 patients need to be treated with ICD to prevent one additional death from any cause (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 24). Individuals younger than 65 derive more benefit than individuals older than 65 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; participants = 348; studies = 1) (NNTB = 10). When added to medical therapy, ICDs probably decrease cardiovascular mortality compared to not adding them (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was also found to decrease sudden cardiac deaths (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; participants = 1677; studies = 3; high-certainty evidence). An average of 25 patients need to be treated with an ICD to prevent one additional sudden cardiac death (NNTB = 25). We found that ICDs probably increase adverse events (possibility of both plausible harm and benefit), but likely have little or no effect on non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Finally, using ICD therapy probably has little or no effect on quality of life, however shocks from the device cause a deterioration in quality of life. No study reported the outcome of first ICD-related hospitalisations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of ICD in addition to medical therapy in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy decreases all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac deaths and probably decreases mortality from cardiovascular causes compared to medical therapy alone. Their use probably increases the risk for adverse events. However, these devices come at a high cost, and shocks from ICDs cause a deterioration in quality of life.

The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR.

METHODS

We conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the 'Health Policy and Services' (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal's characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals' characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.

Methods: We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.

Results: Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.

Conclusion: A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Authorship in reports of clinical practice guidelines: A systematic cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

A transparent and explicit reporting on authors' contributions to the development of clinical practice guidelines and on panelists' characteristics is essential for their credibility and trustworthiness. We did not find published studies on authorship or panel involvement in clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the approach to authorship in reports of clinical practice guidelines, and the characteristics of individual authors.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of guidelines listed in the National Guideline Clearing House (NGC) in 2016. We abstracted data on the general characteristics of the guidelines, report approach to authorship, and individual authors characteristics. Data abstraction was in duplicate and independent manner using standardised form. Data analyses were both descriptive and regression analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 139 eligible guidelines with published papers were identified. Of these, 48 (35%) included a group authorship statement in the author byline. A third of these guidelines (n = 45; 32%) reported on authors' contributions, while about half of the guidelines (n = 74; 53%) reported who of the authors served as panel members. Around one-fifth of the guidelines (n = 30; 22%) reported group membership (eg, content expert, patient representative) for at least 1 author. Less than one-seventh of the eligible guidelines indicated who selected the panel members (n = 18; 13%), reported the types of panel members (n = 18; 13%) or the selection criteria (n = 12; 9%). Higher journal impact factor was associated with both "reporting of the author contributions" (OR = 1.07) and "the inclusion of a panel membership section in the guideline report" (OR = 1.21).

CONCLUSION

Low percentages of clinical practice guidelines report information on important aspects of authorship and characteristics of individual authors. Better reporting of some of these criteria was associated with journal impact factor.

Determinants of poor cognitive function using A-IQCODE among Lebanese older adults: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Dementia characterized by gradual cognitive decline is an increasing public health problem due to population ageing. This study aims at assessing the prevalence and determinants of cognitive decline among Lebanese older adults.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional sample of 502 elders from two Lebanese governorates was conducted. Cognitive decline was assessed using the Arabic Version of 16-item Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline for the older adults (A-IQCODE 16). A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the associations of socio-demographic, clinical and behavioral factors with the presence of cognitive decline.

RESULTS

Almost one of six Lebanese older adults (14.8%) scored below 3.34. Higher odds of cognitive decline were associated with higher age, being female, having heart disease and suffering from depression. Pack-years of cigarette smoking showed a protective effect and this relationship seems to be only statistically significant among older adults aged more than 75 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening programs of cardiovascular risk factors and early detection of depression are 'best buy' public health interventions that could prevent cognitive decline among Lebanese older adults. Differential survival bias seems the reasonable explanation for the protective effect of smoking that is not the common finding from the literature.

Public health journals' requirements for authors to disclose funding and conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Public health journals need to have clear policies for reporting the funding of studies and authors' personal financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures. This study aims to assess the policies of public health journals on reporting of study funding and the disclosure of authors' COIs.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of "Public, Environmental & Occupational Health" journals. Teams of two researchers abstracted data in duplicate and independently using REDCap software.

RESULTS

Of 173 public health journals, 155 (90%) had a policy for reporting study funding information. Out of these, a majority did not require reporting of the phase of the study for which funding was received (88%), nor the types of funding sources (87%). Of the 173 journals, 163 (94%) had a policy requiring disclosure of authors' COI. However, the majority of these journals did not require financial conflicts of interest disclosures relating to institutions (75%) nor to the author's family members (90%) while 56% required the disclosure of at least one form of non-financial COI.

CONCLUSIONS

The policies of the majority of public health journals do not require the reporting of important details such as the role of the funder, and non-financial COI. Journals and publishers should consider revising their editorial policies to ensure complete and transparent reporting of funding and COI.

Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the literature for trials addressing the efficacy of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with a curative intent.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing PCI to no PCI in patients with NSCLC treated with a curative intent were eligible for inclusion. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and CENTRAL between 1946 and July 2016. We also received continual search alerts from PubMed through September 2017. Search terms included "non-small-cell lung carcinoma," "cranial irradiation," and "randomized controlled trials." We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models for relative measures of treatment effect for the incidence of brain metastasis, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). We used Parmar's methodology to derive hazard ratios (HR) when not explicitly stated in RCTs. We narratively synthesized data for the impact of PCI on quality of life (QoL) and neurocognitive function (NCF). We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

Out of 3,548 citations captured by the search strategy, we retained 8 papers and 1 abstract, reporting on 6 eligible trials. Patients who received PCI had a significant reduction in the risk of developing brain metastases as compared with patients who did not [relative risk (RR) = 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.52; moderate quality evidence]. However, there was no OS benefit (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.31; moderate quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis excluding older studies did not show substantively different findings. DFS was reported in the two most recent trials that included only stage III patients. There was significant improvement in DFS with PCI (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.98; high quality evidence). Two studies that reported on QoL reported no statistically significant differences. There was no significant difference in NCF decline in the only study that reported on this outcome, except in immediate and delayed recall, as assessed by the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate quality evidence that the use of PCI in patients with NSCLC decreases the risk of brain metastases, but does not provide an OS benefit. However, data limited to stage III patients suggests that PCI improves DFS, with no effect on QoL.

Optic Nerve Measurement on MRI in the Pediatric Population: Normative Values and Correlations

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Few articles in the literature have looked at the diameter of the optic nerve on MR imaging, especially in children, in whom observations are subjective and no normative data exist. The aim of this study was to establish a data base for optic nerve diameter measurements on MR imaging in the pediatric population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study on the MR imaging of pediatric subjects (younger than 18 years of age) at the Department of Diagnostic Radiology at the American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. The optic nerve measurements were obtained by 3 raters on axial and coronal sections at 3 mm (retrobulbar) and 7 mm (intraorbital) posterior to the lamina cribrosa.

RESULTS

Of 211 scans of patients (422 optic nerves), 377 optic nerves were measured and included. Ninety-four patients were female (45%) and the median age at MR imaging was 8.6 years (interquartile range, 3.9-13.3 years). Optic nerves were divided into 5 age groups: 0-6 months (n = 18), 6 months-2 years (n = 44), 2-6 years (n = 86), 6-12 years (n = 120), and 12-18 years (n = 109). An increase in optic nerve diameter was observed with age, especially in the first 2 years of life. Measurements did not differ with eye laterality or sex.

CONCLUSIONS

We report normative values of optic nerve diameter measured on MR imaging in children from birth to 18 years of age. A rapid increase in optic nerve diameter was demonstrated during the first 2 years of life, followed by a slower increase. This was independent of sex or eye laterality.

NAT1 genotypic and phenotypic contribution to urinary bladder cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

N-acetyltransferase 1 (NAT1), a polymorphic Phase II enzyme, plays an essential role in metabolizing heterocyclic and aromatic amines, which are implicated in urinary bladder cancer (BCa). This systematic review investigates a possible association between the different NAT1 genetic polymorphisms and BCa risk. Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and BASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effects estimates. Statistical heterogeneity was tested with Chi-square and I². Twenty case-control studies, including 5606 cases and 6620 controls, met the inclusion criteria. Pooled odds ratios (OR) analyses showed a statistically significant difference in NAT1*10 versus non-NAT1*10 acetylators in the total sample (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.96) but was borderline among Caucasians (OR: 0.88 with 95% CI: 0.77-1.01). No statistically significant differences in BCa risk were found for: NAT1*10 versus NAT1*4 wild type (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.78-1.19), NAT1 'Fast' versus 'Normal' acetylators (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.84-1.27), and NAT1 'Slow' versus 'Fast' (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 0.93-5.84) or 'Slow' versus 'Normal' acetylators (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 0.92-3.68). When stratifying by smoking status, no statistically significant differences in BCa risk were found for NAT1*10 versus non-NAT1*10 acetylators among the different subgroups. Our study suggests a modest protective role for NAT1*10 and a possible risk contributory role for slow acetylation genotypes in BCa risk. Further research is recommended to confirm these associations.

Requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose financial and non-financial conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The requirements of the health policy and services journals for authors to report their financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) are unclear. The present article aims to assess the requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose their financial and non-financial COIs.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of journals listed by the Web of Science under the category of 'Health Policy and Services'. We reviewed the 'Instructions for Authors' on the journals' websites and then simulated the submission of a manuscript to obtain any additional relevant information made available during that step. We abstracted data in duplicate and independently using a standardised form.

RESULTS

Out of 72 eligible journals, 67 (93%) had a COI policy. A minority of policies described how the disclosed COIs of authors would impact the editorial process (34%). None of the policies had clear-cut criteria for rejection based on the content of the disclosure. Approximately a fifth of policies (21%) explicitly stated that inaccurate or incomplete disclosures might lead to manuscript rejection or retraction. No policy described whether the journal would verify the accuracy or completeness of authors' disclosed COIs. Most journals' policies (93%) required the disclosure of at least one form of financial COI. While the majority asked for specification of source of payment (71%), a minority asked for the amount (18%). Overall, 81% of policies explicitly required disclosure of non-financial COIs.

CONCLUSION

A majority of health policy and services journal policies required the disclosure of authors' financial and non-financial COIs, but few required details on disclosed COIs. Health policy journals should provide specific definitions and instructions for disclosing non-financial COIs. A framework providing clear typology and operational definitions of the different types of COIs will facilitate both their disclosure by authors and reviewers and their assessment and management by the editorial team and the readers.