Test accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction against virus isolation in cell culture for assessing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to assess the performance of Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR with regard to detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures, as their diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) compared to virus isolation remains largely unknown. We searched three databases up to 15 December 2021 for DTA studies. The bivariate model was used to synthesise the estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C. Twenty studies (2605 respiratory samples) using cell culture and at least one molecular test were identified. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Three comparative DTA studies reported results on Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR against cell culture. Two studies evaluated RT-qPCR against cell culture only. Fifteen studies evaluated Ag-RDT against cell culture as reference standard in RT-qPCR-positive samples. For Ag-RDT, summary sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 78; 98%) and specificity 87% (95% CI 70; 95%). For RT-qPCR, summary sensitivity (continuity-corrected) was 98% (95% CI 95; 99%) and specificity 45% (95% CI 28; 63%). In studies relying on RT-qPCR-positive subsamples (n = 15), the summary sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 93% (95% CI 92; 93%) and specificity 63% (95% CI 63; 63%). Ag-RDT show moderately high sensitivity, detecting most but not all samples demonstrated to be infectious based on virus isolation. Although RT-qPCR exhibits high sensitivity across studies, its low specificity to indicate infectivity raises the question of its general superiority in all clinical settings. Study findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias, heterogeneity and the imperfect reference standard for infectivity.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Substitution of animal-based with plant-based foods on cardiometabolic health and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that substituting animal-based with plant-based foods is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and all-cause mortality. Our aim was to summarize and evaluate the evidence for the substitution of any animal-based foods with plant-based foods on cardiometabolic health and all-cause mortality in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science to March 2023 for prospective studies investigating the substitution of animal-based with plant-based foods on CVD, T2D, and all-cause mortality. We calculated summary hazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: In total, 37 publications based on 24 cohorts were included. There was moderate CoE for a lower risk of CVD when substituting processed meat with nuts [SHR (95% CI): 0.73 (0.59, 0.91), n = 8 cohorts], legumes [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), n = 8], and whole grains [0.64 (0.54, 0.75), n = 7], as well as eggs with nuts [0.83 (0.78, 0.89), n = 8] and butter with olive oil [0.96 (0.95, 0.98), n = 3]. Furthermore, we found moderate CoE for an inverse association with T2D incidence when substituting red meat with whole grains/cereals [0.90 (0.84, 0.96), n = 6] and red meat or processed meat with nuts [0.92 (0.90, 0.94), n = 6 or 0.78 (0.69, 0.88), n = 6], as well as for replacing poultry with whole grains [0.87 (0.83, 0.90), n = 2] and eggs with nuts or whole grains [0.82 (0.79, 0.86), n = 2 or 0.79 (0.76, 0.83), n = 2]. Moreover, replacing red meat for nuts [0.93 (0.91, 0.95), n = 9] and whole grains [0.96 (0.95, 0.98), n = 3], processed meat with nuts [0.79 (0.71, 0.88), n = 9] and legumes [0.91 (0.85, 0.98), n = 9], dairy with nuts [0.94 (0.91, 0.97), n = 3], and eggs with nuts [0.85 (0.82, 0.89), n = 8] and legumes [0.90 (0.89, 0.91), n = 7] was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that a shift from animal-based (e.g., red and processed meat, eggs, dairy, poultry, butter) to plant-based (e.g., nuts, legumes, whole grains, olive oil) foods is beneficially associated with cardiometabolic health and all-cause mortality.

Safety and effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19 in children aged 5-11 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, more than 761 million confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections have been recorded globally, and more than half of all children are estimated to be seropositive. Despite high SARS-CoV-2 infection incidences, the rate of severe COVID-19 in children is low. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the EU for children aged 5-11 years. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included studies of any design identified through searching the COVID-19 L·OVE (living overview of evidence) platform up to Jan 23, 2023. We included studies with participants aged 5-11 years, with any COVID-19 vaccine approved by the European Medicines Agency-ie, mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), BNT162b2 Bivalent (against original strain and omicron [BA.4 or BA.5]), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or mRNA-1273.214 (against original strain and omicron BA.1). Efficacy and effectiveness outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-confirmed or antigen-test confirmed), symptomatic COVID-19, hospital admission due to COVID-19, COVID-19-related mortality, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), and long-term effects of COVID-19 (long COVID or post-COVID-19 condition as defined by study investigators or per WHO definition). Safety outcomes of interest were serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest (eg, myocarditis), solicited local and systemic events, and unsolicited adverse events. We assessed risk of bias and rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022306822. FINDINGS: Of 5272 screened records, we included 51 (1·0%) studies (n=17 [33%] in quantitative synthesis). Vaccine effectiveness after two doses against omicron infections was 41·6% (95% CI 28·1-52·6; eight non-randomised studies of interventions [NRSIs]; CoE low), 36·2% (21·5-48·2; six NRSIs; CoE low) against symptomatic COVID-19, 75·3% (68·0-81·0; six NRSIs; CoE moderate) against COVID-19-related hospitalisations, and 78% (48-90, one NRSI; CoE very low) against MIS-C. Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related mortality was not estimable. Crude event rates for deaths in unvaccinated children were less than one case per 100 000 children, and no events were reported for vaccinated children (four NRSIs; CoE low). No study on vaccine effectiveness against long-term effects was identified. Vaccine effectiveness after three doses was 55% (50-60; one NRSI; CoE moderate) against omicron infections, and 61% (55-67; one NRSI; CoE moderate) against symptomatic COVID-19. No study reported vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against hospitalisation following a third dose. Safety data suggested no increased risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·21-3·33]; two randomised controlled trials; CoE low), with approximately 0·23-1·2 events per 100 000 administered vaccines reported in real-life observations. Evidence on the risk of myocarditis was uncertain (RR 4·6 [0·1-156·1]; one NRSI; CoE low), with 0·13-1·04 observed events per 100 000 administered vaccines. The risk of solicited local reactions was 2·07 (1·80-2·39; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after one dose and 2·06 (1·70-2·49; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after two doses. The risk of solicited systemic reactions was 1·09 (1·04-1·16; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after one dose and 1·49 (1·34-1·65; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after two doses. The risk of unsolicited adverse events after two doses (RR 1·21 [1·07-1·38]; CoE moderate) was higher among mRNA-vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children. INTERPRETATION: In children aged 5-11 years, mRNA vaccines are moderately effective against infections with the omicron variant, but probably protect well against COVID-19 hospitalisations. Vaccines were reactogenic but probably safe. Findings of this systematic review can serve as a basis for public health policy and individual decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in children aged 5-11 years. FUNDING: German Federal Joint Committee.

Effects of Dairy Intake on Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Adults: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis.

The health effects of dairy products are still a matter of scientific debate owing to inconsistent findings across trials. Therefore, this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the effects of different dairy products on markers of cardiometabolic health. A systematic search was conducted in 3 electronic databases [MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science; search date: 23 September 2022]. This study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a ≥12-wk intervention comparing any 2 of the eligible interventions [e.g., high dairy (≥3 servings/d or equal amount in grams per day), full-fat dairy, low-fat dairy, naturally fermented milk products, and low dairy/control (0-2 servings/d or usual diet)]. A pairwise meta-analysis and NMA using random-effects model was performed in the frequentist framework for 10 outcomes [body weight, BMI, fat mass, waist circumference, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and systolic blood pressure]. Continuous outcome data were pooled using mean differences (MDs) and dairy interventions ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Nineteen RCTs with 1427 participants were included. High-dairy intake (irrespective of fat content) showed no detrimental effects on anthropometric outcomes, blood lipids, and blood pressure. Both low-fat and full-fat dairy improved systolic blood pressure (MD: -5.22 to -7.60 mm Hg; low certainty) but, concomitantly, may impair glycemic control (fasting glucose-MD: 0.31-0.43 mmol/L; glycated hemoglobin-MD: 0.37%-0.47%). Full-fat dairy may increase HDL cholesterol compared with a control diet (MD: 0.26 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.49 mmol/L). Yogurt improved waist circumference (MD: -3.47 cm; 95% CI: -6.92, -0.02 cm; low certainty), triglycerides (MD: -0.38 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.73, -0.03 mmol/L; low certainty), and HDL cholesterol (MD: 0.19 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.38 mmol/L) compared with milk. In conclusion, our findings indicate that there is little robust evidence that a higher dairy intake has detrimental effects on markers of cardiometabolic health. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022303198.

Self-management in adults after solid-organ transplantation: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: After solid-organ transplantation (SOTx), recipients must adhere to a lifelong medical regimen, change their lifestyle and cope with physiological and psychosocial challenges. This requires active participation in their care and self-management abilities. The concept of self-management after SOTx has only been described regarding specific organs and focused on adherence to medical treatment. A comprehensive conceptualisation of self-management entailing all solid organs and beyond medical aspects does not exist. This might lead to unmet self-management support needs of SOTx recipients and hinder a more holistic and integrative approach in self-management support. Therefore, a better understanding of the concept of self-management after SOTx is needed to facilitate a comprehensive evidence base for healthcare providers and researchers. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore existing evidence on self-management in adults after SOTx. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To identify relevant evidence, six electronic databases and three study registers will be searched, supplemented by handsearches, reference checking and expert recommendations. Screening and selection of available evidence will be carried out in a two-step process by two independent reviewers. International evidence published in English or German reporting on adults after heart, lung, liver, pancreas, kidney or small bowel transplantation will be considered. To meet inclusion criteria, articles have to focus on either: self-management, self-management support or recipients' or healthcare providers' perspectives of challenges and needs potentially addressable by self-management. Data extraction will be performed by two reviewers independently using a structured form. Data will be analysed descriptively and using content analysis procedures. Findings will be summarised narratively and presented in tabular format. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The consultation and approval of an ethics committee is not required for this scoping review. Findings of the scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed open-access journal and presented at conferences.

Interventions for preventing back pain among office workers - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Back pain is common in the working population. This systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the effects of interventions for preventing back pain among office workers. METHODS: We searched eight databases and additional sources up to March 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cluster RCT focusing on office workers, comparing work-related interventions aimed at preventing back pain (defined as pain in any part of the spine) to a control condition and assessing back pain and/or work absence. Further outcomes considered were adverse events and participants' satisfaction. We performed both frequentist and component NMA. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using RoB 2 and certainty of the evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We screened 9809 records and included 24 studies with a total of 7080 participants. RoB was assessed as "some concerns" or "high" for all studies and outcomes. Included studies investigated multicomponent interventions, ergonomics, physical activity, education, behavioral interventions and no/minimal interventions. Effects were mostly not statistically significant and based on low/very low CoE. Physical activity probably reduces days of work absence slightly [mean difference (MD) -1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.07- -0.13], and combining physical activity and ergonomics may reduce back pain intensity (standardized MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.80- -0.02) when compared to no/minimal intervention. A large proportion of participants were satisfied with the interventions, adverse events were rarely assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We observed mostly minor effects of interventions on back pain and work absence among office workers. The practical relevance of these effects is questionable.

Evidence-based guidelines for hypertension and diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in sub-Saharan Africa (CEBHA+), a research network, aims to build capacities for evidence-based healthcare. Hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are two priority areas of the network, both are major causes of burden of disease in this region. This review aimed to: (1) identify existing evidence-based guidelines for HTN and DM, (2) map their recommendations and (3) assess their quality. SETTING: Sub-Saharan Africa. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Systematic searches for evidence-based guidelines, developed with systematic review of evidence and certainty of evidence assessment, were undertaken in electronic databases and grey literature, and ministries of health of all countries in this region were contacted. Included guidelines were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool. Searches were conducted between 7 December 2021 and 14 January 2022. Results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: 66 potentially relevant guidelines were identified, developed in 23, out of 49 sub-Saharan African countries. Of these, only two guidelines (on DM) reported the use of systematic review of evidence and certainty of evidence assessment. Their quality appraisal showed that both have relatively similar scores on domains of AGREE-II, with higher scores on Scope and Purpose and Clarity and Presentation domains, and lower on Stakeholder Involvement, Applicability, Rigour of Development and Editorial independence domains. The overall scores of both guidelines were 50% and 58%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa developed and published their own guidelines for HTN or DM. The quality appraisal showed that the two included guidelines scored relatively low in several crucial domains of AGREE-II. Countries in this region could consider adopting or adapting already published high-quality recommendations, in order to facilitate a more efficient and faster development of much needed trustworthy evidence-based guidance.

Effects of nutritional intervention strategies in the primary prevention of overweight and obesity in school settings: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objective: To examine the effects of different nutritional intervention strategies in the school setting on anthropometric and quality of diet outcomes by comparing and ranking outcomes in a network meta-analysis. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), PsycInfo, CAB Abstracts, Campbell Library, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) BiblioMap, Australian Education Index, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice (JBI EBP) database, Practice-based Evidence in Nutrition (PEN) database, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: A systematic literature search was performed from inception to 2 May 2022. Cluster randomised controlled trials meeting these study criteria were included: generally healthy school students aged 4-18 years; intervention with ≥1 nutritional components in a school setting; and studies that assessed anthropometric measures (eg, body mass index, body fat) or measures related to the quality of diet (eg, intake of fruit and vegetables), or both. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed with a frequentist approach. P scores, a frequentist analogue to surface under the cumulative ranking curve, ranging from 0 to 1 (indicating worst and best ranked interventions, respectively) were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Results: 51 cluster randomised controlled trials involving 75 954 participants and seven intervention nodes were included. Inconsistency could not be assessed (except for intake of fruit and vegetables) because the network meta-analyses were based mainly on star shaped networks with no direct evidence for specific pairs of nutritional interventions. Overall, little or no evidence was found to support a difference in body mass index, body weight, body fat, or waist circumference and moderate improvements in intake of fruit and vegetables with nutritional interventions in a school setting. Low to moderate certainty of evidence further suggested that multicomponent nutritional interventions likely reduced the prevalence (odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80) and incidence (0.67, 0.47 to 0.96) of overweight compared with a control group. Based on low certainty of evidence, nutrition education and multicomponent interventions may be more effective than a control group (ie, usual practice) for increasing intake of fruit and vegetables. Multicomponent nutritional interventions were ranked the most effective for reducing body mass index (P score 0.76) and intake of fat (0.82). Nutrition education was ranked as best for body mass index z score (0.99), intake of fruit and vegetables (0.82), intake of fruit (0.92), and intake of vegetables (0.88). Conclusions: The findings suggest that nutritional interventions in school settings may improve anthropometric and quality of diet measures, potentially contributing to the prevention of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence. The findings should be interpreted with caution because the certainty of evidence was often rated as low. The results of the network meta-analysis could be used by policy makers in developing and implementing effective, evidence based nutritional intervention strategies in the school setting. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020220451.

A Comparison and Evaluation of International Guidelines on the Treatment of Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: When the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began, no uniform treatment and care strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients were yet available. National and international treatment recommendations were formulated under time pressure, initially on the basis of indirect evidence from the treatment of similar diseases. In this article, we give an overview of the content, currency, and methodological quality of the existing national and international guidelines, with special attention to the care of critically ill patients. METHODS: Guidelines were identified by a comprehensive search, the included guidelines were assessed in standardized fashion with the AGREE II guideline assessment instrument and according to the AMWF rulebook criteria, and the core recommendations of the included and methodologically high-quality guidelines were compared. RESULTS: Nine of the 97 guidelines that were identified fulfilled the content criteria for inclusion, and 6 of these fulfilled the qualitative criteria; these 6 guidelines still differed, however, in the topics to which they devoted the most attention, as well as in their methodological quality and currency. The treatment strategies for patients with severe respiratory failure (lung-protective ventilation strategies and rescue measures) deviated little from established standards. Uniform recommendations were made, among other things, for the administration of dexamethasone, which was recommended in all of the guidelines for patients requiring oxygen treatment, as well as for antithrombotic drug prophylaxis and for the prone positioning of ventilated patients. Many recommendations were based on insufficient evidence, and some were contradictory, e.g., those regarding antibiotic treatment or the choice between high-flow oxygen administration via nasal canula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CONCLUSION: The consultation of multiple high-quality international guidelines and guideline recommendations shared in online portals such as MagicApp are helpful sources of information for clinicians. In view of the continuing lack of strong evidence, further research on intensive care treatments is needed (aspects of ventilation, positioning therapy, and the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]).

Treatment Regimens for Immunocompetent Elderly Patients with Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Most patients diagnosed with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) are older than 60 years. Despite promising treatment options for younger patients, prognosis for the elderly remains poor and efficacy of available treatment options is limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify and summarize the current study pool available evaluating different types and combinations of (immuno) chemotherapy with a special focus on HCT-ASCT in elderly PCNSL. Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches in the bibliographic databases Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect (last search conducted in September 2020). For ongoing studies, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the German study register and the WHO registry. RESULTS: In total, we identified six randomized controlled trials (RCT) with 1.346 patients, 26 prospective (with 1.366 patients) and 24 retrospective studies (with 2.629 patients). Of these, only six studies (one completed and one ongoing RCT (with 447 patients), one completed and one ongoing prospective single arm study (with 65 patients), and two retrospective single arm studies (with 122 patients)) evaluated HCT-ASCT. Patient relevant outcomes such as progression-free and overall survival and (neuro-)toxicity were adequately considered across almost all studies. The current study pool is, however, not conclusive in terms of the most effective treatment options for elderly. Main limitations were (very) small sample sizes and heterogeneous patient populations in terms of age ranges (particularly in RCTs) limiting the applicability of the results to the target population (elderly). CONCLUSIONS: Although it has been shown that HCT-ASCT is probably a feasible and effective treatment option, this approach has never been investigated within a RCT including a wide range of elderly patients. A RCT comparing conventional (immuno) chemotherapy with HCT-ASCT is crucial to evaluate benefit and harms in an un-biased manner to eventually provide older PCNSL patients with the most effective treatment.

Work-related interventions for preventing back pain-protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context. METHODS: We will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021232469.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Effects of nutrition intervention strategies in the primary prevention of overweight and obesity in school settings: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity in children and adolescents are major public health challenges affecting quality of life and representing important risk factors in the development of non-communicable diseases. School environments provide great possibilities for the primary prevention of overweight and obesity and different school-based nutrition interventions are available. However, existing research on school-based nutrition interventions has important limitations and no network meta-analysis (NMA) has been performed yet to compare all available interventions. Therefore, the present research project aims to investigate the impact of different nutrition interventions in the school setting by comparing and ranking them using NMA methodology. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic literature search will be performed in 11 electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, CAB Abstracts, Campbell Library, BiblioMap EPPI, Australian Education Index, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice Database and Practice-based Evidence in Nutrition Database). Parallel or cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the following criteria will be included: (1) generally healthy school students aged 4-18 years, (2) school-based intervention with ≥ 1 nutrition component, and (3) assessed anthropometric (overweight/obesity risk, body weight change, weight Z-score, [standardized] body mass index, body fat, waist circumference) and/or diet-quality measures (daily intake of fruits and vegetables, fat, and sugar-sweetened beverages). Random effects pairwise and NMA will be performed for these outcomes and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) estimated (P-score). Where possible, component NMA (CNMA) will be used additionally. Subgroup analyses are carried out for intervention duration, gender, age of school students, socioeconomic status, and geographical location, and sensitivity analyses by excluding high risk of bias RCTs. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and NMA will be the first to both directly and indirectly compare and rank different school-based nutrition interventions for the primary prevention of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence. Our analyses will provide important insights about the effects of the different interventions and show which are the most promising. The results of our study can help inform the design of new studies and will be of value to anyone interested in developing successful, evidence-based nutrition interventions in school settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020220451 .

Percutaneous versus surgical strategy for tracheostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications.

PURPOSE: Tracheostomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures in intensive care medicine. The two main approaches are open surgical tracheostomy (ST) and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT). This systematic review summarizes and analyzes the existing evidence regarding perioperative and postoperative parameters of safety. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, and MEDLINE to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complications of ST and PDT and to define the strategy with the lower risk of potentially life-threatening events. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook. RESULTS: Twenty-four citations comprising 1795 procedures (PDT: n = 926; ST: n = 869) were found suitable for systematic review. No significant difference in the risk of a potentially life-threatening event (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05, P = 0.62, I 2 = 47%) was found between PDT and ST. There was no difference in mortality (RD - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.88, I 2 = 0%). An increased rate of technical difficulties was shown for PDT (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01, 0.08, P = 0.01, I 2 = 60%). Stomal infection occurred more often with ST (RD - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.08 to - 0.02, P = 0.003, I 2 = 60%). Both techniques can be safely performed on the ICU. Meta-analysis of the duration of procedure was not possible owing to high heterogeneity (I 2 = 99%). CONCLUSION: ST and PDT are safe techniques with low incidence of complications. Both techniques can be performed successfully in an ICU setting. ST can be performed on every patient whereas PDT is restricted by several contraindications like abnormal anatomy, previous surgery, coagulopathies, or difficult airway of the patient. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015021967.

Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to determine empirically which electronic databases contribute best to a literature search in surgical systematic reviews. METHODS: For ten published systematic reviews, the systematic literature searches were repeated in the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. On the basis of these reviews, a gold standard set of eligible articles was created. Recall (%), precision (%), unique contribution (%), and numbers needed to read (NNR) were calculated for each database, as well as for searches of citing references and of the reference lists of related systematic reviews (hand search). RESULTS: CENTRAL yielded the highest recall (88.4%) and precision (8.3%) for randomized controlled trials (RCT), MEDLINE for non-randomized studies (NRS; recall 92.6%, precision 5.2%). The most effective combination of two databases plus hand searching for RCT was MEDLINE/CENTRAL (98.6% recall, NNR 97). Adding EMBASE marginally increased the recall to 99.3%, but with an NNR of 152. For NRS, the most effective combination was MEDLINE/Web of Science (99.5% recall, NNR 60). CONCLUSIONS: For surgical systematic reviews, the optimal literature search for RCT employs MEDLINE and CENTRAL. For surgical systematic reviews of NRS, Web of Science instead of CENTRAL should be searched. EMBASE does not contribute substantially to reviews with a surgical intervention.

Prophylactic mesh placement for the PREvention of paraSTOmal hernias: The PRESTO systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Parastomal hernia (PH) is the most common complication after ostomy formation. Prophylactic mesh placement may be effective in reducing the rate of PH at the stoma site. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize the evidence with regard to the safety and effectiveness in comparison with the standard procedure without mesh placement and to identify important risk constellations. METHOD: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library with no language or date restrictions. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) were included. The main outcomes of interest were PH (primary outcome) rate and stoma-related complications (secondary outcomes) such as stenosis or fistula. Statistical analysis included meta-analyses of pooled data and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Eleven trials (eight RCTs; three nRCTs) with a total of 755 patients were included. PH rate varied from 0% to 59% in the intervention and from 20% to 94% in the control group. RCTs showed a significant reduction of PH rate in the mesh group (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.58, p = 0.034), whereas included nRCTs did not. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates. Subgroup analyses showed superiority of non-absorbable meshes and sublay mesh positioning in open surgery. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh placement is safe and reduces PH rate. A recommendation for prophylactic non-absorbable meshes in a sublay position can be made for patients undergoing open colorectal operations with end-ostomies. Further research endeavors should focus on patient-oriented outcomes, not only PH rate, with respect to tailored treatment in specific patient populations.

Antibiotics Versus Surgical Therapy for Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Trials (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016882).

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate available evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of surgical versus conservative treatment of acute appendicitis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is ongoing debate on the merits of surgical and conservative treatment for acute appendicitis. METHODS: A systematic literature search (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase) and hand search of retrieved reference lists up to January 2016 was conducted to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies. After critical appraisal, data were analyzed using a random-effects model in a Mantel-Haenszel test or inverse variance to calculate risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Four trials and four cohort studies (2551 patients) were included. We found that 26.5% of patients in the conservative group needed appendectomy within 1 year, resulting in treatment effectiveness of 72.6%, significantly lower than the 99.4% in the surgical group, (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.7-0.79; P = 0.00001; I = 62%). Overall postoperative complications were comparable (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.35-2.58; P = 0.91; I = 0%), whereas the rate of adverse events (RR 3.18; 95% CI 1.63-6.21; P = 0.0007; I = 1%) and the incidence of complicated appendicitis (RR 2.52; 95% CI 1.17-5.43; P = 0.02; I = 0%) were significantly higher in the antibiotic treatment group. Randomized trials showed significantly longer hospital stay in the antibiotic treatment group (RR 0.3 days; 95% CI 0.07-0.53; P = 0.009; I = 49%). CONCLUSIONS: Although antibiotics may prevent some patients from appendectomies, surgery represents the definitive, one-time only treatment with a well-known risk profile, whereas the long-term impact of antibiotic treatment on patient quality of life and health care costs is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis helps physicians and patients in choosing between treatment options depending on whether they are risk averse or risk takers.

Incisional Hernia Rates After Laparoscopic or Open Abdominal Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are one of the most common long-term complications associated with open abdominal surgery. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to systematically assess laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery as a general surgical strategy in all available indications in terms of incisional hernia occurrence. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing incisional hernia rates after laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery in all indications. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk differences (RD) with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: 24 trials (3490 patients) were included. Incisional hernias were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group (RD -0.06, 95 % CI [-0.09, -0.03], p = 0.0002, I (2) = 75). The advantage of the laparoscopic procedure persisted in the subgroup of total-laparoscopic interventions (RD -0.14, 95 % CI [-0.22, -0.06], p = 0.001, I (2) = 87 %), whereas laparoscopically assisted procedures did not show a significant reduction of incisional hernias compared to open surgery (RD -0.01, 95 % CI [-0.03, 0.01], p = 0.31, I (2) = 35 %). Wound infections were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group (RD -0.06, 95 % CI [-0.09, -0.03], p < 0.0001, I (2) = 35 %); overall postoperative morbidity was comparable in both groups (RD -0.06, 95 % CI [-0.13, 0.00], p = 0.06; I (2) = 64 %). Open abdominal surgery showed a significantly longer hospital stay compared to laparoscopy (RD -1.92, 95 % CI [-2.67, -1.17], p < 0.00001, I (2) = 87 %). At short-term follow-up, quality of life was in favor of laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Incisional hernias are less frequent using the total-laparoscopic approach instead of open abdominal surgery. Whenever possible, the less traumatic access should be chosen.

Placebo-Controlled Trials in Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review was performed to investigate the ethical justification, methodological quality, validity and safety of placebo controls in randomized placebo-controlled surgical trials.Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing a surgical procedure to a placebo. "Surgical procedure" was defined as a medical procedure involving an incision with instruments. Placebo was defined as a blinded sham operation involving no change to the structural anatomy and without an expectable physiological response in the target body compartment.Ten randomized placebo-controlled controlled surgical trials were included, all of them published in high-ranking medical journals (mean impact factor: 20.1). Eight of 10 failed to show statistical superiority of the experimental intervention. Serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.06, P = 0.46). None of the trials had a high risk of bias in any domain. The ethical justification for the use of a placebo control remained unclear in 2 trials.Placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible and provide high-quality data on efficacy of surgical treatments. The surgical placebo entails a considerable risk for study participants. Consequently, a placebo should be used only if justified by the clinical question and by methodological necessity. Based on the current evidence, a pragmatic proposal for the use of placebo controls in future randomized controlled surgical trials is made.