Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. DATA SOURCES: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.

ANTECEDENTES: El glioblastoma (GBM) es un tumor cerebral altamente maligno que casi inevitablemente progresa o recidiva después de un tratamiento de primera línea. No hay consenso sobre el mejor o los mejores tratamientos que se pueden ofrecer a las personas que presentan progresión o recidiva de la enfermedad. A los efectos de la presente revisión, la progresión y la recidiva se consideran como una sola entidad. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad de los tratamientos adicionales para la primera y subsiguiente progresión o recidiva del glioblastoma (GBM) entre las personas que han recibido atención estándar (protocolo Stupp) para el tratamiento primario de la enfermedad, así como preparar un breve comentario económico sobre la evidencia disponible. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos electrónicas de MEDLINE y Embase desde 2005 hasta diciembre de 2019 y en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (CENTRAL, en la Cochrane Library; Número 12, 2019). Las búsquedas económicas incluyeron la National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) hasta 2015 (cierre de la base de datos) y MEDLINE y Embase desde 2015 hasta diciembre de 2019. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y estudios comparativos no aleatorizados (no ECA) que evaluaron la efectividad de los tratamientos para el GBM progresivo/recidivante. Los estudios elegibles incluyeron personas con GBM progresivo o recidivante que habían recibido radioterapia de primera línea con temozolomida (TMZ) concomitante y adyuvante. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente seleccionaron los estudios y extrajeron los datos en un formulario de extracción de datos prediseñado. Se realizaron metanálisis en red (MAR) y los tratamientos se clasificaron según la efectividad de cada desenlace, mediante el modelo de efectos aleatorios y el software Stata (versión 15). La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los criterios GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 42 estudios, que comprendieron 34 ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y ocho estudios no aleatorizados (no ECA), con 5236 participantes. Se consideró que la mayoría de los ECA tuvieron bajo riesgo de sesgo y que los no ECA tuvieron alto riesgo de sesgo. Las intervenciones incluyeron quimioterapia, reoperación, reirradiación y tratamientos nuevos, ya sea utilizadas solos o en combinación. Para la primera recidiva se incluyeron 11 intervenciones en el metanálisis en red (MAR) para la supervivencia general (SG), y ocho para la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP). La lomustina (LOM; también conocida como CCNU) fue el comparador más frecuente y se utilizó como tratamiento de referencia. Ningún estudio en el MAR evaluó la cirugía, la reirradiación, la PCV (procarbazina, lomustina, vincristina), la reexposición a TMZ o el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. No fue posible realizar un MAR para una segunda o posterior recidiva debido a que los datos no fueron suficientes. Los datos de calidad de vida fueron escasos. Primera recidiva (hallazgos del MAR) La mediana de la SG en los estudios incluidos en el MAR varió entre 5,5 y 12,6 meses y la mediana de la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP) varió entre 1,5 y 4,2 meses. No se encontró evidencia de certeza alta de que los tratamientos probados fueran mejores que la lomustina. Estos tratamientos incluyeron los siguientes. Bevacizumab más lomustina: La evidencia indicó probablemente poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG entre el bevacizumab (BEV) combinado con lomustina (LOM) y la monoterapia con LOM (cociente de riesgos instantáneo [CRI] 0,91; 0,75 a 1,10; evidencia de certeza moderada), aunque BEV + LOM puede mejorar la SSP (CRI 0,57; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,44 a 0,74; evidencia de certeza baja). Monoterapia con bevacizumab: La evidencia de certeza baja indicó que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 1,22; IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,76) y la SSP (CRI 0,90; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 1,38; evidencia de certeza baja) entre las monoterapias con BEV y LOM; se necesita más evidencia sobre el BEV. Regorafenib (REG): El REG puede mejorar la SG en comparación con la LOM (CRI 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,76; evidencia de certeza baja). La evidencia sobre la SSP fue de certeza muy baja y se necesita más evidencia sobre el REG. Temozolomida (TMZ) más Depatux­M (ABT414): En cuanto a la SG, evidencia de certeza baja indicó que TMZ más ABT414 puede ser más efectiva que LOM (CRI 0,66; IC del 95%: 0,47 a 0,92) y puede ser más efectiva que BEV (CRI 0,54; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,89; evidencia de certeza baja). Lo anterior se puede deber solamente al componente de TMZ, y se necesita más evidencia. Fotemustina (FOM): FOM y LOM pueden tener efectos similares sobre la SG (CRI 0,89; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 1,57, evidencia de certeza baja). Bevacizumab e irinotecan (IRI): La evidencia sobre BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM para la SG y la SSP no está clara y probablemente hay poca o ninguna diferencia entre BEV + IRI versus la monoterapia con BEV (SG: CRI 0,95; IC del 95%: 0,70 a 1,30; evidencia de certeza moderada). Cuando los tratamientos se clasificaron según la SG, FOM se clasificó primero, BEV + LOM segundo, LOM tercero, BEV + IRI cuarto, y BEV quinto. La clasificación no tiene en cuenta la certeza de la evidencia, lo que también indica que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia entre FOM y LOM. Otros tratamientos Tres estudios evaluaron la reoperación versus ninguna reoperación, con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia, e indicaron posibles ventajas en la supervivencia con la reoperación, en el contexto de poder seleccionar candidatos adecuados para esta intervención. Un tratamiento con cannabinoides en las primeras etapas de evaluación, en combinación con TMZ, merece evaluación adicional. Segunda o posterior recidiva La evidencia limitada de tres estudios heterogéneos indicó que la radioterapia con o sin BEV puede tener un efecto beneficioso sobre la supervivencia, pero se necesita más evidencia. La evidencia no fue suficiente para establecer conclusiones sobre la mejor dosis de radioterapia. Otra evidencia indicó que puede haber poca diferencia en la supervivencia con los campos de tratamiento del tumor en comparación con la mejor opción de tratamiento del médico. No se encontró evidencia fiable sobre el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. Eventos adversos graves (EAG) La combinación BEV + LOM se asoció con un riesgo significativamente mayor de EAG que la monoterapia con LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,72 a 3,66; evidencia de certeza alta), y se clasificó peor junto con cediranib + LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 4,90; evidencia de certeza alta). LOM se clasificó como el mejor y REG como el segundo mejor. Agregar nuevos tratamientos al BEV se asoció generalmente con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves, en comparación con BEV solo. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Para el tratamiento de la primera recidiva del GBM en personas tratadas previamente con cirugía y quimiorradioterapia estándar, los tratamientos combinados evaluados no mejoraron la supervivencia general en comparación con la monoterapia con LOM, y a menudo se asociaron con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves. Hay evidencia limitada que indica que la reoperación con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia puede ser adecuada para candidatos seleccionados. La evidencia sobre la segunda recidiva es escasa. La reirradiación con o sin bevacizumab puede ser de valor en determinados individuos, pero se necesita más evidencia.

Behavioral effects of different contraceptive methods and HIV acquisition: an ancillary study of the ECHO randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The ECHO trial randomised 7829 women to depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), the copper intrauterine device (IUD) and the levonorgestrel (LNG) implant (1:1:1) and found no clear difference in HIV incidence between these three groups. We have previously hypothesized that oligo-amenorrhoea induced by DMPA-IM may have a protective effect on HIV acquisition. The aim of this ancillary study was to assess the effects of DMPA-IM, the IUD and the LNG implant on menstrual symptoms and sexual behavior and to correlate these with HIV acquisition. METHODS: At the Effective Care Research Unit (ECRU) in South Africa, of 615 women already randomised to DMPA-IM, the copper IUD and the LNG implant (1:1:1) 552 agreed to participate. Participants completed a 28-day symptom and behavior diary following their one-month ECHO trial visit and returning it at their 3-month follow-up visit. HIV acquisition data were retrieved from ECHO trial records. RESULTS: Of 552 women enrolled on the ancillary study, 390 (70.6%) completed their daily diary; 130, 133, and 127 received DMPA-IM, IUD, and LNG implant, respectively. Thirty-three (5.9%) of these women acquired HIV. Women on the progestin-only contraceptives were more likely to experience amenorrhoea, as expected, and were less likely to have intra-menstrual coitus than IUD users (p < 0.001 for DMPA-IM vs IUD and p = 0.002 for implant vs IUD). Overall coital frequency was highest and condom usage lowest among DMPA-IM users. Intra-menstrual coitus correlated positively, and duration of menstruation correlated negatively, with HIV acquisition, although these effects were not statistically significant (p = 0.09 and p = 0.079, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the hypothesis that oligo-amenorrhoea and the associated reduced intra-menstrual coitus may mitigate the potential for an increased biological risk of HIV acquisition with DMPA-IM but more evidence is needed. Study registration number PACTR201706001651380.

There have been concerns that the depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA-IM) may increase the risk of getting HIV infection. However, a large multicenter randomized study, the ECHO trial, recently compared HIV incidence among women randomized to DMPA-IM, the copper intrauterine device (IUD) and the levonorgestrel (LNG) implant and found little difference in HIV risk between these methods. DMPA-IM often causes no or scanty menstruation; we hypothesized that this may have a protective effect on getting HIV, by reducing exposure to HIV during menstrual bleeding.This ancillary study was done among ECHO trial participants at one of the ECHO study sites in South Africa. The aim was to assess the effects of the three different contraceptives on menstrual symptoms and sexual behavior and to correlate these with the risk of getting HIV. The study required women to complete a 28-day daily symptom and behavior diary after their one-month ECHO trial follow-up visit.We found that fewer women had sex during their periods with DMPA-IM and the LNG implant than the copper IUD, probably because no or scanty menstruation is more common with both DMPA-IM and the implant. Although effects were not statistically significant, having sex during periods tended to have a higher risk of getting HIV and longer periods indicated a lower risk of getting HIV.We concluded that sexual behavior related to menstruation may influence HIV acquisition and may partially explain why the ECHO trial found little difference in HIV incidence between the three contraceptives assessed despite observational evidence of higher biological risk with DMPA related to immune suppression.

Prepregnancy and early pregnancy calcium supplementation among women at high risk of pre-eclampsia: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing deaths from hypertensive disorders of pregnancy is a global priority. Low dietary calcium might account for the high prevalence of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in low-income countries. Calcium supplementation in the second half of pregnancy is known to reduce the serious consequences of pre-eclampsia; however, the effect of calcium supplementation during placentation is not known. We aimed to test the hypothesis that calcium supplementation before and in early pregnancy (up to 20 weeks' gestation) prevents the development of pre-eclampsia METHODS: We did a multicountry, parallel arm, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Argentina. Participants with previous pre-eclampsia and eclampsia received 500 mg calcium or placebo daily from enrolment prepregnancy until 20 weeks' gestation. Participants were parous women whose most recent pregnancy had been complicated by pre-eclampsia or eclampsia and who were intending to become pregnant. All participants received unblinded calcium 1·5 g daily after 20 weeks' gestation. The allocation sequence (1:1 ratio) used computer-generated random numbers in balanced blocks of variable size. The primary outcome was pre-eclampsia, defined as gestational hypertension and proteinuria. The trial is registered with the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201105000267371. The trial closed on Oct 31, 2017. FINDINGS: Between July 12, 2011, and Sept 8, 2016, we randomly allocated 1355 women to receive calcium or placebo; 331 of 678 participants in the calcium group versus 320 of 677 in the placebo group became pregnant, and 298 of 678 versus 283 of 677 had pregnancies beyond 20 weeks' gestation. Pre-eclampsia occurred in 69 (23%) of 296 participants in the calcium group versus 82 (29%) of 283 participants in the placebo group with pregnancies beyond 20 weeks' gestation (risk ratio [RR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·61-1·06; p=0·121). For participants with compliance of more than 80% from the last visit before pregnancy to 20 weeks' gestation, the pre-eclampsia risk was 30 (21%) of 144 versus 47 (32%) of 149 (RR 0·66, CI 0·44-0·98; p=0·037). There were no serious adverse effects of calcium reported. INTERPRETATION: Calcium supplementation that commenced before pregnancy until 20 weeks' gestation, compared with placebo, did not show a significant reduction in recurrent pre-eclampsia. As the trial was powered to detect a large effect size, we cannot rule out a small to moderate effect of this intervention. FUNDING: The University of British Columbia, a grantee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, WHO; the Argentina Fund for Horizontal Cooperation of the Argentinean Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and the Centre for Intervention Science in Maternal and Child Health.

Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most effective and best-tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost-effectiveness associated with these approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro-oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined 'elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining 'elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta-analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self-care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair-wise meta-analyses or narrative syntheses. Seven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent. Overall survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low-certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low-certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only.   One trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population. We were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following. Quality of life Moderate-certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low. Progression-free survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate-certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low- or very low-certainty. Severe adverse events Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate-certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate-certainty evidence). Economic evidence There is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For elderly people with glioblastoma who are self-caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti-cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Development of the WHO Antenatal Care Recommendations Adaptation Toolkit: a standardised approach for countries.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, WHO recommendations are defined by context-specific factors and WHO is developing strategies to ensure that recommendations are successfully adapted and implemented at country level. This manuscript describes the development of a toolkit to support governments to adapt the WHO recommendations on antenatal care (ANC) for a positive pregnancy experience for their context in a systematic manner. METHODS: The toolkit was developed in three steps. It was created with input from methodologists and regional implementation experts (Step 1) followed by a user-testing phase (Step 2), implemented during country stakeholder meetings. User testing consisted of stakeholder interviews that were transcribed, and data was categorised according to the content analysis method. Suggestions for toolkit improvement and issues identified during the interviews were assessed as serious, moderately serious or minor/cosmetic. RESULTS: A total of 22 stakeholders - comprising five Ministry of Health (MoH) consultants, four MoH policy-makers, and 13 advisors/implementers - from Burkina Faso, India, Rwanda and Zambia participated in user-testing interviews during stakeholder meetings held in each country between August 2018 and February 2019. Most stakeholders had a medical or nursing background and half were women. Overall, responses to the toolkit were positive, with all stakeholders finding it useful and desirable. User testing interviews highlighted four serious, four moderately serious and five minor/cosmetic issues to be managed. These were addressed in the final step (Step 3), an updated version of the WHO ANC Recommendations Adaptation Toolkit, comprised of two main components - a baseline assessment tool with spreadsheets for data entry and a Slidedoc®, a dual-purpose document for reading and presentation, outlining the qualitative data that shaped the women-centred perspective of the guidelines, accompanied by an instruction manual detailing the components' use. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO ANC Recommendations Adaptation Toolkit was developed to support countries to systematically adapt the WHO ANC recommendations for country contexts. Using this approach, similar tools can be developed to support guideline implementation across different health domains and the continuum of care.

Interval brain imaging for adults with cerebral glioma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain should be performed at certain time points or intervals distant from diagnosis (interval or surveillance imaging) of cerebral glioma, to monitor or follow up the disease; it is not known, however, whether these imaging strategies lead to better outcomes among patients than triggered imaging in response to new or worsening symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of different imaging strategies (in particular, pre-specified interval or surveillance imaging, and symptomatic or triggered imaging) on health and economic outcomes for adults with glioma (grades 2 to 4) in the brain. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers (CGNOC) Group Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase up to 18 June 2019 and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to December 2014 (database closure). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and controlled before-after studies with concurrent comparison groups comparing the effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes in adults with cerebral glioma; and full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses and cost-benefit analyses) conducted alongside any study design, and any model-based economic evaluations on pre- and post-treatment imaging in adults with cerebral glioma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane review methodology with two authors independently performing study selection and data collection, and resolving disagreements through discussion. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one retrospective, single-institution study that compared post-operative imaging within 48 hours (early post-operative imaging) with no early post-operative imaging among 125 people who had surgery for glioblastoma (GBM: World Health Organization (WHO) grade 4 glioma). Most patients in the study underwent maximal surgical resection followed by combined radiotherapy and temozolomide treatment. Although patient characteristics in the study arms were comparable, the study was at high risk of bias overall. Evidence from this study suggested little or no difference between early and no early post-operative imaging with respect to overall survival (deaths) at one year after diagnosis of GBM (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.21; 48% vs 55% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence) and little or no difference in overall survival (deaths) at two years after diagnosis of GBM (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 86% vs 81% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence). No other review outcomes were reported. We found no evidence on the effectiveness of other imaging schedules. In addition, we identified no relevant economic evaluations assessing the efficiency of the different imaging strategies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes remains largely unknown. Existing imaging schedules in glioma seem to be pragmatic rather than evidence-based. The limited evidence suggesting that early post-operative brain imaging among GBM patients who will receive combined chemoradiation treatment may make little or no difference to survival needs to be further researched, particularly as early post-operative imaging also serves as a quality control measure that may lead to early re-operation if residual tumour is identified. Mathematical modelling of a large glioma patient database could help to distinguish the optimal timing of surveillance imaging for different types of glioma, with stratification of patients facilitated by assessment of individual tumour growth rates, molecular biomarkers and other prognostic factors. In addition, paediatric glioma study designs could be used to inform future research of imaging strategies among adults with glioma.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma.

BACKGROUND: Gliomas are brain tumours arising from glial cells with an annual incidence of 4 to 11 people per 100,000. In this review we focus on gliomas with low aggressive potential in the short term, i.e. low-grade gliomas. Most people with low-grade gliomas are treated with surgery and may receive radiotherapy thereafter. However, there is concern about the possible long-term effects of radiotherapy, especially on neurocognitive functioning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) compared with no radiotherapy, or different types of radiotherapy, among people with glioma (where 'long-term' is defined as at least two years after diagnosis); and to write a brief economic commentary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 16 February 2018 and updated the search on 14 November 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018 to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAS). Participants were aged 16 years and older with cerebral glioma other than glioblastoma. We included studies where patients in at least one treatment arm received radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, and where neurocognitive outcomes were assessed two or more years after treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of findings using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: The review includes nine studies: seven studies were of low-grade glioma and two were of grade 3 glioma. Altogether 2406 participants were involved but there was high sample attrition and outcome data were available for a minority of people at final study assessments. In seven of the nine studies, participants were recruited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which longer-term follow-up was undertaken in a subset of people that had survived without disease progression. There was moderate to high risk of bias in studies due to lack of blinding and high attrition, and in two observational studies there was high risk of selection bias. Paucity of data and risk of bias meant that evidence was of low to very low certainty. We were unable to combine results in meta-analysis due to diversity in interventions and outcomes.The studies examined the following five comparisons.Radiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatmentTwo observational studies contributed data. At the 12-year follow-up in one study, the risk of cognitive impairment (defined as cognitive disability deficits in at least five of 18 neuropsychological tests) was greater in the radiotherapy group (risk ratio (RR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.71; n = 65); at five to six years the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.06; n = 195). In the other study, one subject in the radiotherapy group had cognitive impairment (defined as significant deterioration in eight of 12 neuropsychological tests) at two years compared with none in the control group (very low certainty evidence).With regard to neurocognitive scores, in one study the radiotherapy group was reported to have had significantly worse mean scores on some tests compared with no radiotherapy; however, the raw data were only given for significant findings. In the second study, there were no clear differences in any of the various cognitive outcomes at two years (n = 31) and four years (n = 15) (very low certainty evidence).Radiotherapy versus chemotherapyOne RCT contributed data on cognitive impairment at up to three years with no clear difference between arms (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.70, n = 117) (low-certainty evidence).High-dose radiotherapy versus low-dose radiotherapyOnly one of two studies reporting this comparison contributed data, and at two and five years there were no clear differences between high- and low-dose radiotherapy arms (very low certainty evidence).Conventional radiotherapy versus stereotactic conformal radiotherapyOne study involving younger people contributed limited data from the subgroup aged 16 to 25 years. The numbers of participants with neurocognitive impairment at five years after treatment were two out of 12 in the conventional arm versus none out of 11 in the stereotactic conformal radiotherapy arm (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 86.72; n = 23; low-certainty evidence).Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapyTwo RCTs tested for cognitive impairment. One defined cognitive impairment as a decline of more than 3 points in MMSE score compared with baseline and reported data from 2-year (110 participants), 3-year (91 participants), and 5-year (57 participants) follow-up with no clear difference between the two arms at any time point. A second study did not report raw data but measured MMSE scores over five years in 126 participants at two years, 110 at three years, 69 at four years and 53 at five years. Authors concluded that there was no difference in MMSE scores between the two study arms (P = 0.4752) (low-certainty evidence).Two RCTs reported quality of life (QoL) outcomes for this comparison. One reported no differences in Brain-QoL scores between study arms over a 5-year follow-up period (P = 0.2767; no raw data were given and denominators were not stated). The other trial reported that the long-term results of health-related QoL showed no difference between the arms but did not give the raw data for overall HRQoL scores (low-certainty evidence).We found no comparative data on endocrine dysfunction; we planned to develop a brief economic commentary but found no relevant economic studies for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy for gliomas with a good prognosis may increase the risk of neurocognitive side effects in the long term; however the magnitude of the risk is uncertain. Evidence on long-term neurocognitive side effects associated with chemoradiotherapy is also uncertain. Neurocognitive assessment should be an integral part of long-term follow-up in trials involving radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas to improve the certainty of evidence regarding long-term neurocognitive effects. Such trials should also assess other potential long-term effects, including endocrine dysfunction, and evaluate costs and cost effectiveness.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 1 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements.

BACKGROUND: WHO has recognised the need to ensure that guideline processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. Along with decision-making criteria that require findings from effectiveness reviews, WHO is increasingly using evidence derived from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the values, acceptability, equity and feasibility implications of its recommendations. This is the first in a series of three papers examining the use of QES in developing clinical and health systems guidelines. METHODS: WHO convened a group of methodologists involved in developing recent (2010-2018) guidelines that were informed by QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. Our aim in this paper is to (1) describe and discuss how the findings of QES can inform the scope of a guideline and (2) develop findings for key guideline decision-making criteria. RESULTS: QES resulted in the addition of new outcomes that are directly relevant to service users, a stronger evidence base for decisions about how much effective interventions and related outcomes are valued by stakeholders in a range of contexts, and a more complete database of summary evidence for guideline panels to consider, linked to decisions about values, acceptability, feasibility and equity. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorously conducted QES can be a powerful means of improving the relevance of guidelines, and of ensuring that the concerns of stakeholders, at all levels of the healthcare system and from a wide range of settings, are taken into account at all stages of the process.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 - Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes.

BACKGROUND: This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations. METHODS: WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating recent (2010-2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines. RESULTS: For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts. CONCLUSIONS: QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 2 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that guideline decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. To help achieve this, WHO guidelines now typically enhance intervention effectiveness data with evidence on a wider range of decision-making criteria, including how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, gender and human rights impacts, and the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly used to provide evidence on this wider range of issues. In this paper, we describe and discuss how to use the findings from QES to populate decision-making criteria in evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks. This is the second in a series of three papers that examines the use of QES in developing clinical and health system guidelines. METHODS: WHO convened a writing group drawn from the technical teams involved in its recent (2010-2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. RESULTS: We describe a step-wise approach to populating EtD frameworks with QES findings. This involves allocating findings to the different EtD criteria (how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, acceptability and feasibility, etc.), weaving the findings into a short narrative relevant to each criterion, and inserting this summary narrative into the corresponding 'research evidence' sections of the EtD. We also identify areas for further methodological research, including how best to summarise and present qualitative data to groups developing guidelines, how these groups draw on different types of evidence in their decisions, and the extent to which our experiences are relevant to decision-making processes in fields other than health. CONCLUSIONS: This paper shows the value of incorporating QES within a guideline development process, and the roles that qualitative evidence can play in integrating the views and experiences of relevant stakeholders, including groups who may not be otherwise represented in the decision-making process.

Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are common causes of serious morbidity and death. Calcium supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, and may help to prevent preterm birth. This is an update of a review last published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium supplementation during pregnancy on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and related maternal and child outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials, comparing high-dose calcium supplementation (at least 1 g daily of calcium) during pregnancy with placebo. For low-dose calcium we included quasi-randomised trials, trials without placebo, trials with cointerventions and dose comparison trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two researchers assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies (18,064 women). We assessed the included studies as being at low risk of bias, although bias was frequently difficult to assess due to poor reporting and inadequate information on methods.High-dose calcium supplementation (≥ 1 g/day) versus placeboFourteen studies examined this comparison, however one study contributed no data. The 13 studies contributed data from 15,730 women to our meta-analyses. The average risk of high blood pressure (BP) was reduced with calcium supplementation compared with placebo (12 trials, 15,470 women: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.81; I² = 74%). There was also a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia associated with calcium supplementation (13 trials, 15,730 women: average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; I² = 70%; low-quality evidence). This effect was clear for women with low calcium diets (eight trials, 10,678 women: average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65; I² = 76%) but not those with adequate calcium diets. The effect appeared to be greater for women at higher risk of pre-eclampsia, though this may be due to small-study effects (five trials, 587 women: average RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.42). These data should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of small-study effects or publication bias. In the largest trial, the reduction in pre-eclampsia was modest (8%) and the CI included the possibility of no effect.The composite outcome maternal death or serious morbidity was reduced with calcium supplementation (four trials, 9732 women; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). Maternal deaths were no different (one trial of 8312 women: one death in the calcium group versus six in the placebo group). There was an anomalous increase in the risk of HELLP syndrome in the calcium group (two trials, 12,901 women: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.82, high-quality evidence), however, the absolute number of events was low (16 versus six).The average risk of preterm birth was reduced in the calcium supplementation group (11 trials, 15,275 women: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence); this reduction was greatest amongst women at higher risk of developing pre-eclampsia (four trials, 568 women: average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83; I² = 60%). Again, these data should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of small-study effects or publication bias. There was no clear effect on admission to neonatal intensive care. There was also no clear effect on the risk of stillbirth or infant death before discharge from hospital (11 trials, 15,665 babies: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09).One study showed a reduction in childhood systolic BP greater than 95th percentile among children exposed to calcium supplementation in utero (514 children: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). In a subset of these children, dental caries at 12 years old was also reduced (195 children, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87).Low-dose calcium supplementation (< 1 g/day) versus placebo or no treatmentTwelve trials (2334 women) evaluated low-dose (usually 500 mg daily) supplementation with calcium alone (four trials) or in association with vitamin D (five trials), linoleic acid (two trials), or antioxidants (one trial). Most studies recruited women at high risk for pre-eclampsia, and were at high risk of bias, thus the results should be interpreted with caution. Supplementation with low doses of calcium reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia (nine trials, 2234 women: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52). There was also a reduction in high BP (five trials, 665 women: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.74), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (one trial, 422 women, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99), but not preterm birth (six trials, 1290 women, average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.03), or stillbirth or death before discharge (five trials, 1025 babies, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.67).High-dose (=/> 1 g) versus low-dose (< 1 g) calcium supplementationWe included one trial with 262 women, the results of which should be interpreted with caution due to unclear risk of bias. Risk of pre-eclampsia appeared to be reduced in the high-dose group (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96). No other differences were found (preterm birth: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08; eclampsia: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.53; stillbirth: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.83). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-dose calcium supplementation (≥ 1 g/day) may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia and preterm birth, particularly for women with low calcium diets (low-quality evidence). The treatment effect may be overestimated due to small-study effects or publication bias. It reduces the occurrence of the composite outcome 'maternal death or serious morbidity', but not stillbirth or neonatal high care admission. There was an increased risk of HELLP syndrome with calcium supplementation, which was small in absolute numbers.The limited evidence on low-dose calcium supplementation suggests a reduction in pre-eclampsia, hypertension and admission to neonatal high care, but needs to be confirmed by larger, high-quality trials.

Type II or type III radical hysterectomy compared to chemoradiotherapy as a primary intervention for stage IB2 cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, with 528,000 estimated new cases globally in 2012. A large majority (around 85%) of the disease burden occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where it accounts for almost 12% of all female cancers. Treatment of stage IB2 cervical cancers, which sit between early and advanced disease, is controversial. Some centres prefer to treat these cancers by radical hysterectomy, with chemoradiotherapy reserved for those at high risk of recurrence. In the UK, we treat stage IB2 cervical cancers mainly with chemoradiotherapy, based on the rationale that a high percentage will have risk factors necessitating chemoradiotherapy postsurgery. There has been no systematic review to determine the best possible evidence in managing these cancers. OBJECTIVES: To determine if primary surgery for stage IB2 cervical cancer (type II or type III radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy) improves survival compared to primary chemoradiotherapy.To determine if primary surgery combined with postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for stage IB2 cervical cancer increases patient morbidity in the management of stage IB2 cervical cancer compared to primary chemoradiotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 3), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April week 2, 2018) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018 week 16). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies up to April 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-randomised studies (NRSs) comparing surgery to chemoradiotherapy in stage IB2 cervical cancers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and analysed data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 4968 records from the literature searches, but we did not identify any RCTs that compared primary surgery with chemoradiotherapy in stage IB2 cervical cancer.We found one NRS comparing surgery to chemoradiotherapy in IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancers which met the inclusion criteria. However, we were unable to obtain data for stage IB2 cancers only and considered the findings very uncertain due to a high risk of selection bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is an absence of high-certainty evidence on the relative benefits and harms of primary radical hysterectomy versus primary chemoradiotherapy for stage IB2 cervical cancer. More research is needed on the different treatment options in stage IB2 cervical cancer, particularly with respect to survival, adverse effects, and quality of life to facilitate informed decision-making and individualised care.

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is the third update of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Library in 2002, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress, which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether communication skills training is effective in changing behaviour of HCPs working in cancer care and in improving HCP well-being, patient health status and satisfaction. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, PsycInfo and CINAHL up to May 2018. In addition, we searched the US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trial Registry and handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: The original review was a narrative review that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies. In updated versions, we limited our criteria to RCTs evaluating CST compared with no CST or other CST in HCPs working in cancer care. Primary outcomes were changes in HCP communication skills measured in interactions with real or simulated people with cancer or both, using objective scales. We excluded studies whose focus was communication skills in encounters related to informed consent for research. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the random-effects method. For continuous data, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs conducted mainly in outpatient settings. Eleven trials compared CST with no CST intervention; three trials compared the effect of a follow-up CST intervention after initial CST training; two trials compared the effect of CST and patient coaching; and one trial compared two types of CST. The types of CST courses evaluated in these trials were diverse. Study participants included oncologists, residents, other doctors, nurses and a mixed team of HCPs. Overall, 1240 HCPs participated (612 doctors including 151 residents, 532 nurses, and 96 mixed HCPs).Ten trials contributed data to the meta-analyses. HCPs in the intervention groups were more likely to use open questions in the post-intervention interviews than the control group (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; P = 0.03, I² = 62%; 5 studies, 796 participant interviews; very low-certainty evidence); more likely to show empathy towards their patients (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.32; P = 0.008, I² = 0%; 6 studies, 844 participant interviews; moderate-certainty evidence), and less likely to give facts only (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01; P = 0.05, I² = 68%; 5 studies, 780 participant interviews; low-certainty evidence). Evidence suggesting no difference between CST and no CST on eliciting patient concerns and providing appropriate information was of a moderate-certainty. There was no evidence of differences in the other HCP communication skills, including clarifying and/or summarising information, and negotiation. Doctors and nurses did not perform differently for any HCP outcomes.There were no differences between the groups with regard to HCP 'burnout' (low-certainty evidence) nor with regard to patient satisfaction or patient perception of the HCPs communication skills (very low-certainty evidence). Out of the 17 included RCTs 15 were considered to be at a low risk of overall bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Various CST courses appear to be effective in improving HCP communication skills related to supportive skills and to help HCPs to be less likely to give facts only without individualising their responses to the patient's emotions or offering support. We were unable to determine whether the effects of CST are sustained over time, whether consolidation sessions are necessary, and which types of CST programs are most likely to work. We found no evidence to support a beneficial effect of CST on HCP 'burnout', the mental or physical health and satisfaction of people with cancer.

Intraoperative imaging technology to maximise extent of resection for glioma.

BACKGROUND: Extent of resection is considered to be a prognostic factor in neuro-oncology. Intraoperative imaging technologies are designed to help achieve this goal. It is not clear whether any of these sometimes very expensive tools (or their combination) should be recommended as standard care for people with brain tumours. We set out to determine if intraoperative imaging technology offers any advantage in terms of extent of resection over standard surgery and if any one technology was more effective than another. OBJECTIVES: To establish the overall effectiveness and safety of intraoperative imaging technology in resection of glioma. To supplement this review of effects, we also wished to identify cost analyses and economic evaluations as part of a Brief Economic Commentary (BEC). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 7, 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to June, week 4, 2017), and Embase (1980 to 2017, week 27). We searched the reference lists of all identified studies. We handsearched two journals, the Journal of Neuro-Oncology and Neuro-oncology, from 1991 to 2017, including all conference abstracts. We contacted neuro-oncologists, trial authors, and manufacturers regarding ongoing and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating people of all ages with presumed new or recurrent glial tumours (of any location or histology) from clinical examination and imaging (computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or both). Additional imaging modalities (e.g. positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy) were not mandatory. Interventions included intraoperative MRI (iMRI), fluorescence-guided surgery, ultrasound, and neuronavigation (with or without additional image processing, e.g. tractography). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results for relevance, undertook critical appraisal according to known guidelines, and extracted data using a prespecified pro forma. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four randomised controlled trials, using different intraoperative imaging technologies: iMRI (2 trials including 58 and 14 participants, respectively); fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) (1 trial, 322 participants); and neuronavigation (1 trial, 45 participants). We identified one ongoing trial assessing iMRI with a planned sample size of 304 participants for which results are expected to be published around autumn 2018. We identified no trials for ultrasound.Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to differences in the tumours included (eloquent versus non-eloquent locations) and variations in the image guidance tools used in the control arms (usually selective utilisation of neuronavigation). There were significant concerns regarding risk of bias in all the included studies. All studies included people with high-grade glioma only.Extent of resection was increased in one trial of iMRI (risk ratio (RR) of incomplete resection 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.96; 1 study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence) and in the trial of 5-ALA (RR of incomplete resection 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.71; 1 study, 270 participants; low-quality evidence). The other trial assessing iMRI was stopped early after an unplanned interim analysis including 14 participants, therefore the trial provides very low-quality evidence. The trial of neuronavigation provided insufficient data to evaluate the effects on extent of resection.Reporting of adverse events was incomplete and suggestive of significant reporting bias (very low-quality evidence). Overall, reported events were low in most trials. There was no clear evidence of improvement in overall survival with 5-ALA (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; 1 study, 270 participants; low-quality evidence). Progression-free survival data were not available in an appropriate format for analysis. Data for quality of life were only available for one study and suffered from significant attrition bias (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intra-operative imaging technologies, specifically iMRI and 5-ALA, may be of benefit in maximising extent of resection in participants with high grade glioma. However, this is based on low to very low quality evidence, and is therefore very uncertain. The short- and long-term neurological effects are uncertain. Effects of image-guided surgery on overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality of life are unclear. A brief economic commentary found limited economic evidence for the equivocal use of iMRI compared with conventional surgery. In terms of costs, a non-systematic review of economic studies suggested that compared with standard surgery use of image-guided surgery has an uncertain effect on costs and that 5-aminolevulinic acid was more costly. Further research, including studies of ultrasound-guided surgery, is needed.

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic cancers.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people survive cancer but a significant proportion have gastrointestinal side effects as a result of radiotherapy (RT), which impairs their quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: To determine which prophylactic interventions reduce the incidence, severity or both of adverse gastrointestinal effects among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2016 and updated them on 2 November 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to prevent adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers, including radiotherapy techniques, other aspects of radiotherapy delivery, pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions. Studies needed a sample size of 20 or more participants and needed to evaluate gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes. We excluded studies that evaluated dosimetric parameters only. We also excluded trials of interventions to treat acute gastrointestinal symptoms, trials of altered fractionation and dose escalation schedules, and trials of pre- versus postoperative radiotherapy regimens, to restrict the vast scope of the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects statistical model for all meta-analyses, and the GRADE system to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 92 RCTs involving more than 10,000 men and women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. Trials involved 44 different interventions, including radiotherapy techniques (11 trials, 4 interventions/comparisons), other aspects of radiotherapy delivery (14 trials, 10 interventions), pharmacological interventions (38 trials, 16 interventions), and non-pharmacological interventions (29 trials, 13 interventions). Most studies (79/92) had design limitations. Thirteen studies had a low risk of bias, 50 studies had an unclear risk of bias and 29 studies had a high risk of bias. Main findings include the following:Radiotherapy techniques: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) may reduce acute (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.88; participants = 444; studies = 4; I2 = 77%; low-certainty evidence) and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65; participants = 332; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Conformal RT (3DCRT or IMRT) versus conventional RT reduces acute GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82; participants = 307; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence) and probably leads to less late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.09; participants = 517; studies = 3; I2 = 44%; moderate-certainty evidence). When brachytherapy (BT) is used instead of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in early endometrial cancer, evidence indicates that it reduces acute GI toxicity (grade 2+) (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; participants = 423; studies = 1; high-certainty evidence).Other aspects of radiotherapy delivery: There is probably little or no difference in acute GI toxicity grade 2+ with reduced radiation dose volume (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.81; participants = 211; studies = 1; moderate-certainty evidence) and maybe no difference in late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.97; participants = 107; studies = 1; low-certainty evidence). Evening delivery of RT may reduce acute GI toxicity (diarrhoea) grade 2+ during RT compared with morning delivery of RT (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; participants = 294; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in acute (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.62 to 7.93, participants = 110; studies = 1) and late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.65; participants = 81; studies = 1) between a bladder volume preparation of 1080 mls and that of 540 mls (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence on balloon and hydrogel spacers suggests that these interventions for prostate cancer RT may make little or no difference to GI outcomes.Pharmacological interventions: Evidence for any beneficial effects of aminosalicylates, sucralfate, amifostine, corticosteroid enemas, bile acid sequestrants, famotidine and selenium is of a low or very low certainty. However, evidence on certain aminosalicylates (mesalazine, olsalazine), misoprostol suppositories, oral magnesium oxide and octreotide injections suggests that these agents may worsen GI symptoms, such as diarrhoea or rectal bleeding.Non-pharmacological interventions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that protein supplements (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74; participants = 74; studies = 1), dietary counselling (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.60; participants = 74; studies = 1) and probiotics (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; participants = 923; studies = 5; I2 = 91%) may reduce acute RT-related diarrhoea (grade 2+). Dietary counselling may also reduce diarrhoeal symptoms in the long term (at five years, RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; participants = 61; studies = 1). Low-certainty evidence from one study (108 participants) suggests that a high-fibre diet may have a beneficial effect on GI symptoms (mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI 1.71 to 10.49) and quality of life (MD 20.50, 95% CI 9.97 to 31.03) at one year. High-certainty evidence indicates that glutamine supplements do not prevent RT-induced diarrhoea. Evidence on various other non-pharmacological interventions, such as green tea tablets, is lacking.Quality of life was rarely and inconsistently reported across included studies, and the available data were seldom adequate for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Conformal radiotherapy techniques are an improvement on older radiotherapy techniques. IMRT may be better than 3DCRT in terms of GI toxicity, but the evidence to support this is uncertain. There is no high-quality evidence to support the use of any other prophylactic intervention evaluated. However, evidence on some potential interventions shows that they probably have no role to play in reducing RT-related GI toxicity. More RCTs are needed for interventions with limited evidence suggesting potential benefits.

Effectiveness of respectful care policies for women using routine intrapartum services: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have identified how mistreatment during labour and childbirth can act as a barrier to the use of health facilities. Despite general agreement that respectful maternity care (RMC) is a fundamental human right, and an important component of quality intrapartum care that every pregnant woman should receive, the effectiveness of proposed policies remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of introducing RMC policies into health facilities providing intrapartum services. METHODS: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of introducing RMC policies into health facilities. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS, AJOL, WHO RHL, and Popline, along with ongoing trials registers (ISRCT register, ICTRP register), and the White Ribbon Respectful Maternity Care Repository. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. FINDINGS: Five studies were included. All were undertaken in Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, South Africa), and involved a range of components. Two were cluster RCTs, and three were before/after studies. In total, over 8000 women were included at baseline and over 7500 at the endpoints. Moderate certainty evidence suggested that RMC interventions increases women's experiences of respectful care (one cRCT, approx. 3000 participants; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.44, 95% CI 2.45-4.84); two observational studies also reported positive changes. Reports of good quality care increased. Experiences of disrespectful or abusive care, and, specifically, physical abuse, were reduced. Low certainty evidence indicated fewer accounts of non-dignified care, lack of privacy, verbal abuse, neglect and abandonment with RMC interventions, but no difference in satisfaction rates. Other than low certainty evidence of reduced episiotomy rates, there were no data on the pre-specified clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Multi-component RMC policies appear to reduce women's overall experiences of disrespect and abuse, and some components of this experience. However, the sustainability of the demonstrated effect over time is unclear, and the elements of the programmes that have most effect have not been examined. While the tested RMC policies show promising results, there is a need for rigorous research to refine the optimum approach to deliver and achieve RMC in all settings.