Clinical care of children and adolescents with COVID-19: recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: The epidemiology and clinical manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are different in children and adolescents compared with adults. Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be less common in children, with milder disease overall, severe complications may occur, including paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS-TS). Recognising the distinct needs of this population, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce formed a Paediatric and Adolescent Care Panel to provide living guidelines for Australian clinicians to manage children and adolescents with COVID-19 and COVID-19 complications. Living guidelines mean that these evidence-based recommendations are updated in near real time to give reliable, contemporaneous advice to Australian clinicians providing paediatric care. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: To date, the Taskforce has made 20 specific recommendations for children and adolescents, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, respiratory support, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for COVID-19 and for the management of PIMS-TS. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINES: The Taskforce currently recommends corticosteroids as first line treatment for acute COVID-19 in children and adolescents who require oxygen. Tocilizumab could be considered, and remdesivir should not be administered routinely in this population. Non-invasive ventilation or high flow nasal cannulae should be considered in children and adolescents with hypoxaemia or respiratory distress unresponsive to low flow oxygen if appropriate infection control measures can be used. Children and adolescents with PIMS-TS should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. Intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids, with concomitant aspirin and thromboprophylaxis, should be considered for the treatment of PIMS-TS. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Care of older people and people requiring palliative care with COVID-19: guidance from the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become critically ill with COVID-19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID-19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID-19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease-directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID-19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID-19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.

Vitamin D recommendations in clinical guidelines: A systematic review, quality evaluation and analysis of potential predictors.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D has been widely promoted for bone health through supplementation and fortification of the general adult population. However, there is growing evidence that does not support these strategies. Our aim is to review the quality and recommendations on vitamin D nutritional and clinical practice guidelines and to explore predictive factors for their direction and strength. METHODS: We searched three databases and two guideline repositories from 2010 onwards. We performed a descriptive analysis, a quality appraisal using AGREE II scores (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) and a bivariate analysis evaluating the association between direction and strength of recommendations, AGREE II domains' scores and pre-specified characteristics. RESULTS: We included 34 guidelines, 44.1% recommended, 26.5% suggested and 29.4% did not recommend vitamin D supplementation. Guidelines that scored higher for "editorial independence" and "overall quality score" were less likely to recommend or suggest vitamin D supplementation (median 68.8 vs 35.4; P = .001 and 58.3 vs 37.5; P = .02). Guidance produced by government organisations and those that reported source of funding were associated with higher AGREE II scores. Unclear role of source of funding was associated with recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (P = .034). Editorial independence was an independent predictor for recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (OR 1.09; CI95% 1.02 to 1.16; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers, clinicians and patients should be aware that lower quality guidelines and those reporting conflicts of interest are more likely to promote vitamin D supplementation. Guideline organisations should improve the quality of their recommendations' development and the management of conflicts of interest. Users and editors should be aware of these findings when using and appraising guidelines.

Clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19: Living recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

To date, 18 living recommendations for the clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 have been issued by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. This includes recommendations on mode of birth, delayed umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, antenatal corticosteroids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, disease-modifying treatments (including dexamethasone, remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and advanced respiratory support interventions (prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Through continuous evidence surveillance, these living recommendations are updated in near real-time to ensure clinicians in Australia have reliable, evidence-based guidelines for clinical decision-making. Please visit https://covid19evidence.net.au/ for the latest recommendation updates.

[Overdiagnosis in women's health: The case of osteoporosis]. / Sobrediagnóstico en la salud de la mujer: el caso de la osteoporosis.

In 1994, the World Health Organisation established osteoporosis criteria based on bone mineral density (in terms of T-Score), granting a risk factor the category of disease. Given that it has a low positive predictive value of fractures when applied to low-risk populations, its use as a screening test is controversial because it favours overdiagnosis due to the false labelling of the disease it produces. In the coming years, the indication of densitometry will be made based on the absolute risk of fracture. This is the criterion adopted by the PAPPS (Programa de Actividades Preventivas y de Promoción de la Salud or Programme for Preventive Activities and the Promotion of Health), which proposes as part of its latest recommendations the use of the Z-score instead of the T-Score, as a densitometric evaluation criterion, in a clear effort to fight against overdiagnosis.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 4: search methods and approaches for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the key features of a continual evidence surveillance process that can be implemented for living guidelines and to outline the considerations and trade-offs in adopting different approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the US GRADE Network (USGN) shared their practical experiences of and approaches to establishing surveillance systems for living guidelines. We identified several common components of evidence surveillance and listed the key features and considerations for each component drawn from case studies, highlighting differences with standard guidelines. RESULTS: We developed guidance that covers the initial information needed to support decisions around suitability for living mode and the practical considerations in setting up continual search surveillance systems (search frequency, sources to search, use of automation, reporting the search, ongoing resources, and evaluation). The case studies draw on our experiences with developing guidelines for COVID-19, as well as for other conditions such as stroke and diabetes, and cover a range of practical approaches, including the use of automation. CONCLUSION: This paper highlights different approaches to continual evidence surveillance that can be implemented in living guidelines.

Clinical named entity recognition and relation extraction using natural language processing of medical free text: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications have developed over the past years in various fields including its application to clinical free text for named entity recognition and relation extraction. However, there has been rapid developments the last few years that there's currently no overview of it. Moreover, it is unclear how these models and tools have been translated into clinical practice. We aim to synthesize and review these developments. METHODS: We reviewed literature from 2010 to date, searching PubMed, Scopus, the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL), and Association of Computer Machinery (ACM) libraries for studies of NLP systems performing general-purpose (i.e., not disease- or treatment-specific) information extraction and relation extraction tasks in unstructured clinical text (e.g., discharge summaries). RESULTS: We included in the review 94 studies with 30 studies published in the last three years. Machine learning methods were used in 68 studies, rule-based in 5 studies, and both in 22 studies. 63 studies focused on Named Entity Recognition, 13 on Relation Extraction and 18 performed both. The most frequently extracted entities were "problem", "test" and "treatment". 72 studies used public datasets and 22 studies used proprietary datasets alone. Only 14 studies defined clearly a clinical or information task to be addressed by the system and just three studies reported its use outside the experimental setting. Only 7 studies shared a pre-trained model and only 8 an available software tool. DISCUSSION: Machine learning-based methods have dominated the NLP field on information extraction tasks. More recently, Transformer-based language models are taking the lead and showing the strongest performance. However, these developments are mostly based on a few datasets and generic annotations, with very few real-world use cases. This may raise questions about the generalizability of findings, translation into practice and highlights the need for robust clinical evaluation.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods. RESULTS: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode. CONCLUSION: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Using evidence to decision frameworks led to guidelines of better quality and more credible and transparent recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the use of Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is associated to higher quality of both guidelines and individual recommendations. METHODS: We identified guidelines recently published by international organizations that have methodological guidance documents for their development. Pairs of researchers independently extracted information on the use of these frameworks, appraised the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE-II), and assessed the clinical credibility and implementability of the recommendations with the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool. We conducted both descriptive and inferential analyses. RESULTS: We included 66 guidelines from 17 different countries, published in the last 5 years. Thirty guidelines (45%) used an EtD framework to formulate their recommendations. Compared to those that did not use a framework, those using an EtD framework scored higher in all domains of both AGREE-II and AGREE-REX (P < 0.05). Quality scores did not differ between the use of the The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-EtD framework (17 guidelines) or another EtD framework (13 guidelines) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of EtD frameworks is associated with guidelines of better quality, and more credible and transparent recommendations. Endorsement of EtD frameworks by guideline developing organizations will likely increase the quality of their guidelines.

Comparing health outcomes between coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess current evidence comparing the impact of available coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with different subtypes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on health outcomes. METHODS: Scopus, Embase and PubMed were systematically searched in May 2022 for studies comparing outcomes between coronary interventions in frail older patients with ACS. Studies were excluded if they provided no objective assessment of frailty during the index admission, under-represented patients aged 75 years or older, or included patients with non-ACS coronary disease without presenting results for the ACS subgroup. Following data extraction from the included studies, a qualitative synthesis of results was undertaken. RESULTS: Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. All eligible studies were observational. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across study designs regarding ACS subtypes included, frailty assessments used, coronary interventions compared, and outcomes studied. All studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Notably, adjustment for confounders was limited or not adequately reported in all studies. The comparative assessment suggested a possible efficacy signal for invasive treatment relative to conservative treatment but possibly at the risk of increased bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence comparing health outcomes between different coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with ACS. Available evidence is at high risk of bias. Given the growing importance of ACS in frail patients aged 75 years or older, new studies are needed to inform optimal ACS care for this population. Future studies should rigorously adjust for confounders.

Development of an algorithm to classify primary care electronic health records of alcohol consumption: experience using data linkage from UK Biobank and primary care electronic health data sources.

OBJECTIVES: Develop a novel algorithm to categorise alcohol consumption using primary care electronic health records (EHRs) and asses its reliability by comparing this classification with self-reported alcohol consumption data obtained from the UK Biobank (UKB) cohort. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The UKB, a population-based cohort with participants aged between 40 and 69 years recruited across the UK between 2006 and 2010. PARTICIPANTS: UKB participants from Scotland with linked primary care data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Create a rule-based multiclass algorithm to classify alcohol consumption reported by Scottish UKB participants and compare it with their classification using data present in primary care EHRs based on Read Codes. We evaluated agreement metrics (simple agreement and kappa statistic). RESULTS: Among the Scottish UKB participants, 18 838 (69%) had at least one Read Code related to alcohol consumption and were used in the classification. The agreement of alcohol consumption categories between UKB and primary care data, including assessments within 5 years was 59.6%, and kappa was 0.23 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.24). Differences in classification between the two sources were statistically significant (p<0.001); More individuals were classified as 'sensible drinkers' and in lower alcohol consumption levels in primary care records compared with the UKB. Agreement improved slightly when using only numerical values (k=0.29; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.31) and decreased when using qualitative descriptors only (k=0.18;95% CI 0.16 to 0.20). CONCLUSION: Our algorithm classifies alcohol consumption recorded in Primary Care EHRs into discrete meaningful categories. These results suggest that alcohol consumption may be underestimated in primary care EHRs. Using numerical values (alcohol units) may improve classification when compared with qualitative descriptors.

The Perspectives of Patients with Chronic Diseases and Their Caregivers on Self-Management Interventions: A Scoping Review of Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Self-management (SM) interventions are supportive interventions systematically provided by healthcare professionals, peers, or laypersons to increase the skills and confidence of patients in their ability to manage chronic diseases. We had two objectives: (1) to summarise the preferences and experiences of patients and their caregivers (informal caregivers and healthcare professionals) with SM in four chronic diseases and (2) to identify and describe the relevant outcomes for SM interventions from these perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods scoping review of reviews. We searched three databases until December 2020 for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods reviews exploring patients' and caregivers' preferences or experiences with SM in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart failure (HF). Quantitative data were narratively synthesised, and qualitative data followed a three-step descriptive thematic synthesis. Identified themes were categorised into outcomes or modifiable factors of SM interventions. RESULTS: We included 148 reviews covering T2DM (n = 53 [35.8%]), obesity (n = 20 [13.5%]), COPD (n = 32 [21.6%]), HF (n = 38 [25.7%]), and those with more than one disease (n = 5 [3.4%]). We identified 12 main themes. Eight described the process of SM (disease progression, SM behaviours, social support, interaction with healthcare professionals, access to healthcare, costs for patients, culturally defined roles and perceptions, and health knowledge), and four described their experiences with SM interventions (the perceived benefit of the intervention, individualised care, sense of community with peers, and usability of equipment). Most themes and subthemes were categorised as outcomes of SM interventions. CONCLUSION: The process of SM shaped the perspectives of patients and their caregivers on SM interventions. Their perspectives were influenced by the perceived benefit of the intervention, the sense of community with peers, the intervention's usability, and the level of individualised care. Our findings can inform the selection of patient-important outcomes, decision-making processes, including the formulation of recommendations, and the design and implementation of SM interventions.

Point-of-care tests for urinary tract infections: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

INTRODUCTION: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the second most common type of infection worldwide, accounting for a large number of primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing. Current diagnosis is based on an empirical approach, relying on symptoms and occasional use of urine dipsticks. The diagnostic reference standard is still urine culture, although it is not routinely recommended for uncomplicated UTIs in the community, due to time to diagnosis (48 hours). Faster point-of-care tests have been developed, but their diagnostic accuracy has not been compared. Our objective is to systematically review and meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of currently available point-of-care tests for UTIs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for UTIs will be included. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to 1 June 2019. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Meta-analysis will be performed depending on data availability and heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a systematic review protocol and therefore formal ethical approval is not required, as no primary, identifiable, personal data will be collected. Patients or the public were not involved in the design of our research. However, the findings from this review will be shared with key stakeholders, including patient groups, clinicians and guideline developers, and will also be presented and national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112019.

Impact of viral epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare workers: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at examining the impact of providing healthcare during health emergencies caused by viral epidemic outbreaks on healthcare workers' (HCWs) mental health; to identify factors associated with worse impact, and; to assess the available evidence base regarding interventions to reduce such impact. METHOD: Rapid systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (inception to August 2020). We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health problems, and used GRADE to ascertain the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 117 studies. The pooled prevalence was higher for acute stress disorder (40% (95%CI 39 to 41%)), followed by anxiety (30%, (30 to 31%)), burnout (28% (26 to 31%)), depression (24% (24 to 25%)), and post-traumatic stress disorder (13% (13 to 14%)). We identified factors associated with the likelihood of developing those problems, including sociodemographic (younger age and female gender), social (lack of social support, stigmatization), and occupational (working in a high-risk environment, specific occupational roles, and lower levels of specialised training and job experience) factors. Four studies reported interventions for frontline HCW: two educational interventions increased confidence in pandemic self-efficacy and in interpersonal problems solving (very low certainty), whereas one multifaceted intervention improved anxiety, depression, and sleep quality (very low certainty). LIMITATIONS: We only searched three databases, and the initial screening was undertaken by a single reviewer. CONCLUSION: Given the very limited evidence regarding the impact of interventions to tackle mental health problems in HCWs, the risk factors identified represent important targets for future interventions.

Health checks in general practice: evidence first, not last.

Despite being ubiquitous in primary care, there is no accepted consensus on the definition and main components of health checks. They range from periodic health evaluations with a general physician, through the screening and diagnostic tests derived from these visits, to broader screening programs. Health checks may promote a fluid patient-provider relationship, improve the delivery of some preventive measures, and reduce the patient's anxiety. However, they can also expose patients to overdiagnosis and unnecessary interventions. Research on the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of health checks is limited. As a consequence, health checks and screening programs are implemented in several countries and supported by national scientific societies based chiefly on their potential benefits on surrogate outcomes. There is also substantial variability regarding the target population (eg, initial age), tests, or intervals. We call for a rigorous assessment of the net effect of all health checks, taking into consideration common biases (eg, sticky-diagnosis and slippery-linkage biases), patient-important outcomes, potential adverse events, cost-effectiveness, as well as equity and feasibility of the proposed programs.