Building living systematic reviews and reporting standards for comparative microscopic analysis of white diseases in hard corals.

Over the last 4 decades, coral disease research has continued to provide reports of diseases, the occurrence and severity of disease outbreaks and associated disease signs. Histology using systematic protocols is a gold standard for the microscopic assessment of diseases in veterinary and medical research, while also providing valuable information on host condition. However, uptake of histological analysis for coral disease remains limited. Increasing disease outbreaks on coral reefs as human impacts intensify highlights a need to understand the use of histology to date in coral disease research. Here, we apply a systematic approach to collating, mapping and reviewing histological methods used to study coral diseases with 'white' signs (i.e., white diseases) in hard coral taxa and map research effort in this field spanning study design, sample processing and analysis in the 33 publications identified between 1984 and 2022. We find that studies to date have not uniformly detailed methodologies, and terminology associated with reporting and disease description is inconsistent between studies. Combined these limitations reduce study repeatability, limiting the capacity for researchers to compare disease reports. A primary outcome of this study is the provision of transparent and repeatable protocols for systematically reviewing literature associated with white diseases of hard coral taxa, and development of recommendations for standardised reporting procedures with the aim of increasing uptake of histology in addition to allowing for ongoing comparative analysis through living systematic reviews for the coral disease field.

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations.

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic reviews and evidence syntheses.

Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a 'living' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the review's research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.

A Living Database of HIV Implementation Research (LIVE Project): Protocol for Rapid Living Reviews.

BACKGROUND: HIV implementation research evolves rapidly and is often complex and poorly characterized, which makes the synthesis of data on HIV implementation strategies inherently difficult. This is further compromised by prolonged data abstraction processes due to variable interventions, outcomes, and context, and delays in the publication of review findings; this can all result in outdated and irrelevant systematic reviews. OBJECTIVE: The LIVE project (A Living Database of HIV Implementation Research) aims to overcome these challenges by applying an implementation science lens to the conduct of rapid living systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform HIV service delivery priorities and guideline development. METHODS: The LIVE project will generate a series of living systematic reviews exploring implementation strategies for improving HIV cascade outcomes (HIV infection, HIV diagnosis, linkage and retention in HIV care, viral suppression, and mortality). We will search Embase and MEDLINE as well databases specific to review questions for studies conducted after 2004 using predefined search terms to identify studies conducted in any age group or setting, and using implementation strategies that target policy makers, society, health organizations, health workers, and beneficiaries of care and their families. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies will be included to ensure reviews include pragmatic data. In addition to assessments of methodological quality, features of the implementation strategies, relevance for implementation, and evidence quality will be determined using recognized frameworks. After initial publication, knowledge gaps will be identified, and review questions and search strategies revised to address ongoing critical areas of inquiry. Updated searches will be conducted every 6 months, with subsequent ongoing screening, data abstraction, and revision of meta-analyses. RESULTS: As of July 2022, five reviews are at various stages of development within the LIVE project. Three systematic reviews are underway and living review processes are in development for two reviews with estimated completion over the next 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This project and resulting systematic reviews will provide critical insights for HIV service delivery to inform international guideline development. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37070.

Herbal Medicine Intervention for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review and Cumulative Meta-Analysis.

Background: Integrative herbal medicine has been reported to have beneficial effects in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Aim: To compile up-to-date evidence of the benefits and risks of herbal medicine for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms. Methods: Eleven databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP), Research Information Service System (RISS), Korean Medical database (KMBase), Korean Association of Medical Journal database (KoreaMed), and OASIS database, were searched from 15 June, 2020, until 28 March 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in any language, reporting the efficacy and safety outcomes of herbal medicine in patients of all ages with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in this analysis. Data extraction and quality assessments were performed independently. Results: Random-effects meta-analyses showed evidence of favorable effects of treatment with herbal medicine when added to standard treatment, versus standard treatment alone, on the total effective rate (p = 0.0001), time to remission from fever (p < 0.00001), rate of remission from coughing (p < 0.0001), fatigue (p = 0.02), sputum production (p = 0.004), improvement of manifestations observed on chest computed tomography scans (p < 0.00001), incidence of progression to severe COVID-19 (p = 0.003), all-cause mortality (p = 0.003), time to a negative COVID-19 coronavirus test (p < 0.0001), and duration of hospital stay (p = 0.0003). There was no evidence of a difference between herbal medicine added to standard treatment, versus standard treatment alone, on the rate of remission from symptoms such as a fever, sore throat, nasal congestion and discharge, diarrhea, dry throat, chills, and the rate of conversion to a negative COVID-19 coronavirus test. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a significant difference in adverse events between the two groups. There was an unclear risk of bias across the RCTs included in this analysis, indicating that most studies had methodological limitations. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that herbal medicine added to standard treatment has potential benefits in the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms but the certainty of evidence was low.

Evidence on scaling in health and social care: protocol for a living umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in scaling effective health innovations to promote equitable access to high-quality health services worldwide. However, multiple challenges persist in scaling innovations. In this study, we aim to summarize the scaling evidence in the health and social care literature and identify current knowledge gaps. METHODS: We will conduct a living umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. We will consider all knowledge syntheses addressing scaling in health or social care (e.g., any setting, any clinical area) and conducted in a systematic way. We will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsychINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstract (Proquest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global, from inception. Furthermore, we will conduct searches of the grey literature. No restriction regarding date or language will be applied. Each phase of the review will be processed by two independent reviewers. We will develop a data extraction form on Covidence. We will assess the methodological quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR2 and the risk of bias using ROBIS. Results will be presented in tabular form and accompanied by a narrative synthesis covering the traditional themes of scaling science that emerge from the analysis, such as coverage, range, and sustainability, as well as themes less covered in the literature, including reporting guidance, models, tools, barriers, and/or facilitators to scaling innovations, evidence regarding application in high-income or low-income countries, and end-user engagement. We will disseminate the findings via publications and through relevant networks. DISCUSSION: The findings of the umbrella review will facilitate access to scaling evidence in the literature and help strengthen the science of scaling for researchers, policy makers, and program managers. Finally, this work will highlight important knowledge gaps and help prioritize future research questions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on November 11, 2020 (registration number: CRD42020183774 ).

Association of frailty with outcomes in individuals with COVID-19: A living review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Frailty leaves older adults vulnerable to adverse health outcomes. Frailty assessment is recommended by multiple COVID-19 guidelines to inform care and resource allocation. We aimed to identify, describe, and synthesize studies reporting the association of frailty with outcomes (informed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim [health, resource use, and experience]) in individuals with COVID-19. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Studies reporting associations between frailty and outcomes in the setting of COVID-19 diagnosis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with COVID-19. MEASUREMENTS: Following review of titles, abstracts and full text, we included 52 studies that contained 118,373 participants with COVID-19. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic studies tool. Our primary outcome was mortality, secondary outcomes included delirium, intensive care unit admission, need for ventilation and discharge location. Where appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool adjusted and unadjusted effect measures by frailty instrument. RESULTS: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was the most used frailty instrument. Mortality was reported in 37 studies. After confounder adjustment, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with mortality in COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-2.14; hazard ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.33-2.61). On an unadjusted basis, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with increased odds of delirium and reduced odds of intensive care unit admission. Results were generally consistent using other frailty instruments. Patient-reported, cost and experience outcomes were rarely reported. CONCLUSION: Frailty is associated with a substantial increase in mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, even after adjustment. Delirium risk is also increased. Frailty assessment may help to guide prognosis and individualized care planning, but data relating frailty status to patient-reported outcomes are urgently needed to provide a more comprehensive overview of outcomes relevant to older adults.

The association of smoking status with SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID-19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta-analyses (version 7).

AIMS: To estimate the association of smoking status with rates of (i) infection, (ii) hospitalization, (iii) disease severity and (iv) mortality from SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 disease. DESIGN: Living rapid review of observational and experimental studies with random-effects hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses. Published articles and pre-prints were identified via MEDLINE and medRxiv. SETTING: Community or hospital, no restrictions on location. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who received a SARS-CoV-2 test or a COVID-19 diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, disease severity and mortality stratified by smoking status. Study quality was assessed (i.e. 'good', 'fair' and 'poor'). FINDINGS: Version 7 (searches up to 25 August 2020) included 233 studies with 32 'good' and 'fair' quality studies included in meta-analyses. Fifty-seven studies (24.5%) reported current, former and never smoking status. Recorded smoking prevalence among people with COVID-19 was generally lower than national prevalence. Current compared with never smokers were at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection [relative risk (RR) = 0.74, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.58-0.93, τ = 0.41]. Data for former smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.05, 95% CrI = 0.95-1.17, τ = 0.17), but favoured there being no important association (21% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). Former compared with never smokers were at somewhat increased risk of hospitalization (RR = 1.20, CrI = 1.03-1.44, τ = 0.17), greater disease severity (RR = 1.52, CrI = 1.13-2.07, τ = 0.29) and mortality (RR = 1.39, 95% CrI = 1.09-1.87, τ = 0.27). Data for current smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.06, CrI = 0.82-1.35, τ = 0.27; RR = 1.25, CrI = 0.85-1.93, τ = 0.34; RR = 1.22, 95% CrI = 0.78-1.94, τ = 0.49, respectively), but favoured there being no important associations with hospitalization and mortality (35% and 70% probability of RR ≥ 1.1, respectively) and a small but important association with disease severity (79% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, increased disease severity and mortality from COVID-19. However, it is uncertain whether these associations are causal.

Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial co-pathogens are commonly identified in viral respiratory infections and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of bacterial co-infection (at presentation) and secondary infection (after presentation) in patients with COVID-19. SOURCES: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE databases for English language literature from 2019 to April 16, 2020. Studies were included if they (a) evaluated patients with confirmed COVID-19 and (b) reported the prevalence of acute bacterial infection. CONTENT: Data were extracted by a single reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The main outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with an acute bacterial infection. Any bacteria detected from non-respiratory-tract or non-bloodstream sources were excluded. Of 1308 studies screened, 24 were eligible and included in the rapid review representing 3338 patients with COVID-19 evaluated for acute bacterial infection. In the meta-analysis, bacterial co-infection (estimated on presentation) was identified in 3.5% of patients (95%CI 0.4-6.7%) and secondary bacterial infection in 14.3% of patients (95%CI 9.6-18.9%). The overall proportion of COVID-19 patients with bacterial infection was 6.9% (95%CI 4.3-9.5%). Bacterial infection was more common in critically ill patients (8.1%, 95%CI 2.3-13.8%). The majority of patients with COVID-19 received antibiotics (71.9%, 95%CI 56.1 to 87.7%). IMPLICATIONS: Bacterial co-infection is relatively infrequent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The majority of these patients may not require empirical antibacterial treatment.

Evidence map of pancreatic surgery: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic surgery is a large and complex field of research. Several evidence gaps exist for specific diseases or surgical procedures. An overview on existing knowledge is needed to plan and prioritise future research. The aim of this project is to create a systematic and living evidence map of pancreatic surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be performed searching for all randomised controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews (SR) on pancreatic surgery. RCT and SR will be grouped in research topics. Baseline and outcome data from RCT will be extracted, presented and effect sizes meta-analysed. Data from SR will be used to identify evidence gaps. A freely accessible web-based evidence map in the format of a mind map will be created. The evidence map and meta-analyses will be updated periodically. DISSEMINATION: After completion of the project, a permanently updated evidence map of pancreatic surgery will be available to patients, physicians, researchers and funding bodies via www.evidencemap.surgery. Its use will allow clinical decision-making based on primary data and prioritisation of future research endeavours. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019133444.

Vascular image registration techniques: A living review.

Registration of vascular structures is crucial for preoperative planning, intraoperative navigation, and follow-up assessment. Typical applications include, but are not limited to, Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Implantation and monitoring of tumor vasculature or aneurysm growth. In order to achieve the aforementioned goals, a large number of various registration algorithms has been developed. With this review paper we provide a comprehensive overview over the plethora of existing techniques with a particular focus on the suitable classification criteria such as the involved modalities of the employed optimization methods. However, we wish to go beyond a static literature review which is naturally doomed to be outdated after a certain period of time due to the research progress. We augment this review paper with an extendable and interactive database in order to obtain a living review whose currency goes beyond the one of a printed paper. All papers in this database are labeled with one or multiple tags according to 13 carefully defined categories. The classification of all entries can then be visualized as one or multiple trees which are presented via a web-based interactive app (http://livingreview.in.tum.de) allowing the user to choose a unique perspective for literature review. In addition, the user can search the underlying database for specific tags or publications related to vessel registration. Many applications of this framework are conceivable, including the use for getting a general overview on the topic or the utilization by physicians for deciding about the best-suited algorithm for a specific application.