Evaluating methods for risk prediction of Covid-19 mortality in nursing home residents before and after vaccine availability: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective in reducing hospitalization, COVID-19 symptoms, and COVID-19 mortality for nursing home (NH) residents. We sought to compare the accuracy of various machine learning models, examine changes to model performance, and identify resident characteristics that have the strongest associations with 30-day COVID-19 mortality, before and after vaccine availability. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study analyzing data from all NH facilities across Ontario, Canada. We included all residents diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and living in NHs between March 2020 and July 2021. We employed five machine learning algorithms to predict COVID-19 mortality, including logistic regression, LASSO regression, classification and regression trees (CART), random forests, and gradient boosted trees. The discriminative performance of the models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each model using 10-fold cross-validation. Model calibration was determined through evaluation of calibration slopes. Variable importance was calculated by repeatedly and randomly permutating the values of each predictor in the dataset and re-evaluating the model's performance. RESULTS: A total of 14,977 NH residents and 20 resident characteristics were included in the model. The cross-validated AUCs were similar across algorithms and ranged from 0.64 to 0.67. Gradient boosted trees and logistic regression had an AUC of 0.67 pre- and post-vaccine availability. CART had the lowest discrimination ability with an AUC of 0.64 pre-vaccine availability, and 0.65 post-vaccine availability. The most influential resident characteristics, irrespective of vaccine availability, included advanced age (≥ 75 years), health instability, functional and cognitive status, sex (male), and polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive accuracy and discrimination exhibited by all five examined machine learning algorithms were similar. Both logistic regression and gradient boosted trees exhibit comparable performance and display slight superiority over other machine learning algorithms. We observed consistent model performance both before and after vaccine availability. The influence of resident characteristics on COVID-19 mortality remained consistent across time periods, suggesting that changes to pre-vaccination screening practices for high-risk individuals are effective in the post-vaccination era.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in adolescents, adults, and older adults: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A panel convened by the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after simple and surgical tooth extraction(s) and for the temporary management (ie, definitive dental treatment not immediately available) of toothache associated with pulp and periapical diseases in adolescents, adults, and older adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The panel conducted 4 systematic reviews to determine the effect of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, local anesthetics, corticosteroids, and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision Framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated recommendations and good practice statements using the best available evidence. There is a beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonopioid medications compared with opioid medications. In particular, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile than opioids. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain after tooth extraction(s) and the temporary management of toothache. The use of opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when the first-line therapy is insufficient to reduce pain or there is contraindication of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinicians should avoid the routine use of just-in-case prescribing of opioids and should exert extreme caution when prescribing opioids to adolescents and young adults.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in children: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs, American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after 1 or more simple and surgical tooth extractions and the temporary management of toothache (that is, when definitive dental treatment not immediately available) associated with pulp and furcation or periapical diseases in children (< 12 years). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of analgesics and corticosteroids in managing acute dental pain. They used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated 7 recommendations and 5 good practice statements across conditions. There is a small beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen compared with not providing analgesic therapy. There is no available evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on acute pain after surgical tooth extractions in children. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen and naproxen alone or in combination with acetaminophen, are recommended for managing acute dental pain after 1 or more tooth extractions (that is, simple and surgical) and the temporary management of toothache in children (conditional recommendation, very low certainty). According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the use of codeine and tramadol in children for managing acute pain is contraindicated.

Corticosteroids for managing acute pain subsequent to surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.

Analgesics for the management of acute dental pain in the pediatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 2020. They included randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic interventions with each other and a placebo in pediatric participants undergoing dental extractions or experiencing irreversible pulpitis. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors included 6 randomized controlled trials reporting 8 comparisons. Ibuprofen may reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen (mean difference [MD], 0.27 points; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.68; low certainty) and a placebo (MD, -0.19 points; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.21; low certainty). Acetaminophen may reduce pain intensity compared with a placebo (MD, -0.13 points; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.26; low certainty). Acetaminophen and ibuprofen combined probably reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen alone (MD, -0.75 points; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.27; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen alone (MD, -0.01 points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.51; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence regarding adverse effects. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Several pharmacologic interventions alone or in combination may provide a beneficial effect when managing acute dental pain in children. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the use of analgesics to manage irreversible pulpitis.

Evaluation of the use of GRADE in dentistry systematic reviews and its impact on conclusions: a protocol for a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of evidence of systematic reviews (SRs) with varying degrees of methodological quality. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach allows SR authors to assess the certainty of the evidence they found and transparently relay their conclusions. As there appears to be infrequent utilization of GRADE in the field of dentistry, to identify the impact of GRADE, the aim of this study is to evaluate the use of GRADE in the dental literature and determine whether SRs that use GRADE differ from those that do not with respect to their conclusions. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search Ovid MEDLINE for SRs published from 2016 to the present. We will conduct both screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate and use pre-piloted, standardized forms for data extraction. We will determine the frequency of the use of GRADE and the varying levels of certainty in the current literature and evaluate whether GRADE is being used appropriately. We will also evaluate whether SRs not using GRADE differ from those that use GRADE with regard to methodological quality. We will also determine whether the conclusions of SRs that do not use GRADE would change had GRADE been utilized. Additionally, we will evaluate whether SRs using GRADE are more likely to formulate appropriate conclusions compared to SRs that do not use it. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate the frequency of GRADE assessments in dentistry SRs and the impact of GRADE assessments on the conclusions of a SR. It has important implications for both SR authors and users of this type of literature.

Injectable and topical local anesthetics for acute dental pain: 2 systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction and in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US Clinical Trials registry through November 21, 2020. The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long- vs short-acting injectable anesthetics to reduce pain after tooth extraction (systematic review 1) and evaluated the effect of topical anesthetics in patients with symptomatic pulpitis (systematic review 2). Pairs of reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs comparing long- vs short-acting local anesthetics suggest that bupivacaine may decrease the use of rescue analgesia and may not result in additional adverse effects (low certainty evidence). Bupivacaine probably reduces the amount of analgesic consumption compared with lidocaine with epinephrine (mean difference, -1.91 doses; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.46; moderate certainty) and mepivacaine (mean difference, -1.58 doses; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.95; moderate certainty). Five RCTs suggest that both benzocaine 10% and 20% may increase the number of people experiencing pain reduction compared with placebo when managing acute irreversible pulpitis (low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Bupivacaine may be superior to lidocaine with epinephrine and mepivacaine with regard to time to and amount of analgesic consumption. Benzocaine may be superior to placebo in reducing pain for 20 through 30 minutes after application.

Psychometric Validation of the CLEFT-Q Patient Reported Outcome Measure: A Prospective Study to Examine Cross-Sectional Construct Validity.

OBJECTIVE: CLEFT-Q is a condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). The aim of this study was to examine the cross-sectional construct validity of the CLEFT-Q scales. DESIGN: Construct validity was assessed through a prospective study that tested hypotheses regarding correlations of scores with other PROMs that measure related constructs. SETTING: Seven cleft centres in Canada, the USA, and UK were involved. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients were aged eight to 29 years with CL/P. INTERVENTIONS: Before undergoing rhinoplasty, orthognathic, cleft lip scar revision, and alveolar bone graft, participants were asked to complete the following PROMs: CLEFT-Q (9 scales), Child Oral Health Impact Profile (socio-emotional subscale) and Cleft Hearing Appearance and Speech Questionnaire (features 1 subscale). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The correlation coefficients examining the relationship between the scales were the main outcome measures. Correlations (Spearman) were calculated and interpreted as follows: <0.3 weak, 0.30 to 0.50 moderate, ≥0.50 strong. RESULTS: Participants (n = 177) were mostly male (61%) and aged between eight and 11 years (42%). Overall, 38 of 52 (73%) hypotheses tested were supported. More specifically, 20 of 26 (77%) hypotheses about correlations between the appearance scales were supported, two of three (67%) hypotheses about correlations between the health-related quality of life scales were supported, and 16 of 23 (70%) hypotheses about correlations between the appearance and health-related quality of life scales were supported. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional construct validity of the CLEFT-Q scales adds further evidence of the psychometric properties of this instrument.

In-Hospital Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Drivers and Interventions for Antibiotic Use and Resistance: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis of Data from Canada and Other OECD Countries.

Hospitals continue to face challenges in reducing incorrect antibiotic use due to social and cultural factors at the level of the health system, the care facility, the provider, and the patient. The objective of this paper is to highlight the social and cultural drivers of antimicrobial use and resistance and targeted interventions for secondary and tertiary care settings in Canada and other OECD countries. This paper is an extension of the synthesis conducted for the Public Health Agency of Canada's 2019 Spotlight Report: Preserving Antibiotics Now and Into the Future. We conducted a systematic review with a few modifications to meet rapid timelines. We conducted a search in Ovid MEDLINE and McMaster University's evidence databases for systematic reviews and then for individual Canadian studies. To cast a wider net, we searched OECD organization websites and screened reference lists from systematic reviews. We synthesized the evidence narratively and categorized the evidence into macro-, meso-, and microlevel. A total of 70 studies were (a) from OCED countries and summarized evidence of potential sociocultural antimicrobial resistance and use barriers or facilitators and/or interventions addressing these challenges; (b) systematic reviews with 50% of included studies that are situated in secondary and tertiary settings; and (c) published in Canada's two official languages, English and French. We found that hospital structures and policies may influence antibiotic utilization and variations in antimicrobial management. Microlevel factors may sway inappropriate prescribing among clinicians. The amount and type of antibiotics used may affect resistance rates. Interventions were mainly comprised of antibiotic stewardship and training that modify clinician behavior and that educate patients and carers. This evidence synthesis illustrates the various drivers of, and interventions for, antimicrobial use and resistance at the macro-, meso-, and microlevel in secondary and tertiary settings. We demonstrate that upstream drivers may lead to downstream events that influence antimicrobial resistance.

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties. METHODS: Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points). RESULTS: Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909. CONCLUSIONS: Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Systematic review of reporting quality of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations in healthcare are designed to inform decisions by the estimation of cost and effect trade-off of two or more interventions. This review identified and appraised the quality of reporting of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from January 1, 2012 to November 30, 2019. Data extracted included: the type of economic evaluation (i.e., cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-minimization analysis (CMA)), domain of plastic surgery, journal, year, and country of publication. The CHEERS checklist (with 24 items) was used to appraise the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Ninety-two economic evaluations were identified; CUA (10%), CEA (31%), CBA (4%), and CMA (50%). Breast surgery was the top domain (48%). Most were conducted in the USA (61%) and published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal (28%). One-third were published in the last two years. The average CHEERS checklist compliance score was 15 (63%). The average CHEERS checklist compliance score per type of evaluation was 19 (77%) for CUA, 17 (70%) for CEA, 13 (52%) for CBA, and 14 (57%) for CMA. The least reported CHEERS checklist items included: time horizon (15%), discount rate (18%), and assessment of heterogeneity (15%). Thirty-two percent of studies were inappropriately titled (i.e., methodologically incorrect). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting of economic evaluations is suboptimal. The CHEERS checklist should be consulted when performing and reporting economic evaluations in plastic surgery.

Opioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and harms of adding medical cannabis to prescription opioids among people living with chronic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Opioid dose reduction, pain relief, sleep disturbance, physical and emotional functioning and adverse events. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA AND METHODS: We included studies that enrolled patients with chronic pain receiving prescription opioids and explored the impact of adding medical cannabis. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: Eligible studies included five randomised trials (all enrolling chronic cancer-pain patients) and 12 observational studies. All randomised trials instructed participants to maintain their opioid dose, which resulted in a very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis has little or no impact on opioid use (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.4 milligram morphine equivalent (MME); 95% CI (CI) -12.7 to 5.8). Randomised trials provided high certainty evidence that cannabis addition had little or no effect on pain relief (WMD -0.18 cm; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.02; on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain) or sleep disturbance (WMD -0.22 cm; 95% CI -0.4 to -0.06; on a 10 cm VAS for sleep disturbance; minimally important difference is 1 cm) among chronic cancer pain patients. Addition of cannabis likely increases nausea (relative risk (RR) 1.43; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.96; risk difference (RD) 4%, 95% CI 0% to 7%) and vomiting (RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.24; RD 3%; 95% CI 0% to 6%) (both moderate certainty) and may have no effect on constipation (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.35; RD -1%; 95% CI -4% to 2%) (low certainty). Eight observational studies provided very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis reduced opioid use (WMD -22.5 MME; 95% CI -43.06 to -1.97). CONCLUSION: Opioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis for chronic pain remain uncertain due to very low certainty evidence.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091098.

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated with Distress in Adolescent and Young Adults with Cancer.

Purpose: Distress in cancer is defined as multifactorial unpleasant experience of an emotional, psychological, social, or spiritual nature that interferes with ones' ability to cope with cancer and its symptoms and treatment. The aim of this study was to determine clinical and demographic factors associated with the presence of distress in adolescent and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. Methods: Data were collected as part of a field-test study conducted between August 2016 and November 2017 in Canada (Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver) to determine the reliability and validity of CDS-AYA (Cancer Distress Scales for Adolescent and Young Adults). The CDS-AYA consist of five independently functioning scales including impact of cancer, physical, emotional, cognitive, and cancer worry. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, using established CDS-AYA cut points, were performed to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with the presence of distress in AYAs of ages 15-39 years with cancer. Results: Across all scales, increased distress was associated with female gender (p < 0.05), on-treatment status (p < 0.05), and reported poor overall health (p < 0.001). For the emotional scale, distress was also associated with being of age 15-19 years (p = 0.01). The greatest effect size for all scales was associated with treatment status [exp(ß) = 1.78-4.6], except for the cognitive scale where gender had a slightly greater effect size. Conclusion: Factors associated with distress in AYA patients with cancer were similar across five CDS-AYA scales. Although it is important to screen all patients for distress, our findings reveal that patients who are female, on treatment, or who report having poorer health may be at a greater risk.

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Dietary recommendations and policies should be guided by rigorous systematic reviews. Reviews that are of poor methodological quality may be ineffective or misleading. Most of the evidence in nutrition comes from nonrandomized studies of nutritional exposures (usually referred to as nutritional epidemiology studies), but to date methodological evaluations of the quality of systematic reviews of such studies have been sparse and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the quality of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nutritional epidemiology studies and to propose guidance addressing major limitations. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (January 2018-August 2019), EMBASE (January 2018-August 2019), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2018-February 2019) for systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies. We included a random sample of 150 reviews. RESULTS: Most reviews were published by authors from Asia (n = 49; 32.7%) or Europe (n = 43; 28.7%) and investigated foods or beverages (n = 60; 40.0%) and cancer morbidity and mortality (n = 54; 36%). Reviews often had important limitations: less than one-quarter (n = 30; 20.0%) reported preregistration of a protocol and almost one-third (n = 42; 28.0%) did not report a replicable search strategy. Suboptimal practices and errors in the synthesis of results were common: one-quarter of meta-analyses (n = 30; 26.1%) selected the meta-analytic model based on statistical indicators of heterogeneity and almost half of meta-analyses (n = 50; 43.5%) did not consider dose-response associations even when it was appropriate to do so. Only 16 (10.7%) reviews used an established system to evaluate the certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies often have serious limitations. Authors can improve future reviews by involving statisticians, methodologists, and researchers with substantive knowledge in the specific area of nutrition being studied and using a rigorous and transparent system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: An essential component of systematic reviews is the assessment of risk of bias. To date, there has been no investigation of how reviews of non-randomised studies of nutritional exposures (called 'nutritional epidemiologic studies') assess risk of bias. OBJECTIVE: To describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies. RESULTS: Most reviews (n=131/150; 87.3%) attempted to assess risk of bias. Commonly used tools neglected to address all important sources of bias, such as selective reporting (n=25/28; 89.3%), and frequently included constructs unrelated to risk of bias, such as reporting (n=14/28; 50.0%). Most reviews (n=66/101; 65.3%) did not incorporate risk of bias in the synthesis. While more than half of reviews considered biases due to confounding and misclassification of the exposure in their interpretation of findings, other biases, such as selective reporting, were rarely considered (n=1/150; 0.7%). CONCLUSION: Reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Psychosocial and quality of life impact of scars in the surgical, traumatic and burn populations: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the fact that millions of scars affect individuals annually, little is known about their psychosocial impact and overall quality of life (QOL) on individuals. Scars from multiple aetiologies may cause psychiatric and emotional disturbances, can limit physical functioning and increase costs to the healthcare system. The purpose of this protocol is to describe the methodological considerations that will guide the completion of a scoping review that will summarise the extent, range and nature of psychosocial health outcomes and QOL of scars of all aetiologies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework will be completed, namely having ongoing consultation between experts from the beginning of the process, then (1) identifying the research question/s, (2) identifying the relevant studies from electronic databases and grey literature, with (3) study selection and (4) charting of data by two independent coders, and (5) collating, summarising and reporting data. Experts will include a health information specialist (TAW), scar expert (JSF), scoping review consultant (SCK), as well as at least two independent coders (NZ, AM). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will not be sought for this scoping review. We plan to disseminate this research through publications, presentations and meetings with relevant stakeholders.