Sensitivity and Specificity of Using GPT-3.5 Turbo Models for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are performed manually despite the exponential growth of scientific literature. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of GPT-3.5 Turbo, from OpenAI, as a single reviewer, for title and abstract screening in systematic reviews. DESIGN: Diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING: Unannotated bibliographic databases from 5 systematic reviews representing 22 665 citations. PARTICIPANTS: None. MEASUREMENTS: A generic prompt framework to instruct GPT to perform title and abstract screening was designed. The output of the model was compared with decisions from authors under 2 rules. The first rule balanced sensitivity and specificity, for example, to act as a second reviewer. The second rule optimized sensitivity, for example, to reduce the number of citations to be manually screened. RESULTS: Under the balanced rule, sensitivities ranged from 81.1% to 96.5% and specificities ranged from 25.8% to 80.4%. Across all reviews, GPT identified 7 of 708 citations (1%) missed by humans that should have been included after full-text screening at the cost of 10 279 of 22 665 false-positive recommendations (45.3%) that would require reconciliation during the screening process. Under the sensitive rule, sensitivities ranged from 94.6% to 99.8% and specificities ranged from 2.2% to 46.6%. Limiting manual screening to citations not ruled out by GPT could reduce the number of citations to screen from 127 of 6334 (2%) to 1851 of 4077 (45.4%), at the cost of missing from 0 to 1 of 26 citations (3.8%) at the full-text level. LIMITATIONS: Time needed to fine-tune prompt. Retrospective nature of the study, convenient sample of 5 systematic reviews, and GPT performance sensitive to prompt development and time. CONCLUSION: The GPT-3.5 Turbo model may be used as a second reviewer for title and abstract screening, at the cost of additional work to reconcile added false positives. It also showed potential to reduce the number of citations before screening by humans, at the cost of missing some citations at the full-text level. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Effectiveness and Safety of Measures to Prevent Infections and Other Complications Associated With Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) contribute substantially to the global burden of infections. This systematic review assessed 24 infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions to prevent PIVC-associated infections and other complications. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, WHO Global Index Medicus, CINAHL, and reference lists for controlled studies from 1 January 1980-16 March 2023. We dually selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and rated the certainty of evidence (COE). For outcomes with 3 or more trials, we conducted Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 105 studies met our prespecified eligibility criteria, addressing 16 of the 24 research questions; no studies were identified for 8 research questions. Based on findings of low to high COE, wearing gloves reduced the risk of overall adverse events related to insertion compared with no gloves (1 non-randomized controlled trial [non-RCT]; adjusted risk ratio [RR], .52; 95% CI, .33-.85), and catheter removal based on defined schedules potentially resulted in a lower phlebitis/thrombophlebitis incidence (10 RCTs; RR, 0.74, 95% credible interval, .49-1.01) compared with clinically indicated removal in adults. In neonates, chlorhexidine reduced the phlebitis score compared with non-chlorhexidine-containing disinfection (1 RCT; 0.14 vs 0.68; P = .003). No statistically significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their frequent use and concern about PIVC-associated complications, this review underscores the urgent need for more high-quality studies on effective IPC methods regarding safe PIVC management. In the absence of valid evidence, adherence to standard precaution measures and documentation remain the most important principles to curb PIVC complications. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/exdb4).

An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production. OBJECTIVE: To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively. RESULTS: We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated. CONCLUSION: For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of First- and Second-Step Treatment Strategies for Major Depressive Disorder : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect. PURPOSE: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022). STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available. CONCLUSION: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians.

Values and Preferences of Patients With Depressive Disorders Regarding Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Treatments : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Developers of clinical practice guidelines need to take patient values and preferences into consideration when weighing benefits and harms of treatment options for depressive disorder. PURPOSE: To assess patient values and preferences regarding pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments of depressive disorder. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (EBSCO) were searched for eligible studies published from 1 January 2014 to 30 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently screened 30% of search results. The remaining 70% of the abstracts were screened by single reviewers; excluded abstracts were checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of reviewers independently screened full texts. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence, and a second reviewer checked for completeness and accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review included 11 studies: 4 randomized controlled trials, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 qualitative studies. In 1 randomized controlled trial, participants reported at the start of therapy that they expected supportive-expressive psychotherapy and antidepressants to yield similar improvements. A cross-sectional study reported that non-Hispanic White participants and men generally preferred antidepressants over talk therapy, whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants and women generally did not have a preference. Another cross-sectional study reported that the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants were insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction. For other comparisons and outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn because of the insufficient certainty of evidence. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this review is the low or insufficient certainty of evidence for most outcomes. No evidence was available on second-step depression treatment or differences in values and preferences based on gender, race/ethnicity, age, and depression severity. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be some differences in preferences for talk therapy or pharmacologic treatment of depressive disorders based on gender or race/ethnicity. In addition, low-certainty evidence suggests that insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction may be the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants. Evidence is lacking or insufficient to draw any further conclusions about patients' weighing or valuation of the benefits and harms of depression treatments. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020212442).

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Evidence Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments. DATA SOURCES: The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified the data abstraction and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified. LIMITATION: Evidence for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only. CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456).

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. DATA SOURCES: Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo. LIMITATION: Many outcomes had few events and small samples. CONCLUSION: Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. DATA SYNTHESIS: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously. LIMITATIONS: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence. CONCLUSION: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

[Who Guideline for Non-Surgical Management of Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults in Primary and Community Care Settings]. / WHO-Leitlinie zur nicht-operativen Behandlung chronisch unspezifischer Kreuzschmerzen bei Erwachsenen in der Primärversorgung.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a very common condition that affects most people at some point in their lives. It represents a burden on those affected, reducing their ability to participate in activities of normal life; at the same time, dealing with it increases the economic costs of healthcare. AIM: The aim of this guideline was to contribute to WHO activities for reducing the impact of low back pain in adults and to support the WHO approach to integrated care for older people in primary care. METHODS: In December 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the "WHO guideline for non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain in adults in primary and community care settings". It was developed following the process according to the WHO handbook for guideline development. The team at the WHO Collaborating Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria) translated the summary of this guideline for its application in German-speaking countries. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: The guideline addresses 37 interventions for the treatment of chronic primary low back pain in primary care and provides 24 recommendations and one good practice statement. No recommendations were made regarding twelve interventions due to equivocation or lack of sufficient evidence. The recommended interventions are intended to provide a range of options to support and personalize care for adults with chronic primary low back pain.

[WHO guideline on carbohydrate intake for adults and children]. / WHO-Leitlinie zur Kohlenhydratzufuhr für Erwachsene und Kinder.

BACKGROUND: Noncommunicable diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide. Unhealthy diets are a major risk factor. Among other dietary factors, poorer quality of carbohydrates in the diet is associated with an increased risk of NCDs. The proportion of dietary fibre is a particularly important indicator of the quality of carbohydrate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this World Health Organization (WHO)guideline is to provide guidance on carbohydrate intake, including dietary fibre and healthy food sources of carbohydrates. METHOD: This guideline was developed following the WHO Manual for Guideline Development. The process includes a review of systematically gathered evidence by an international, multidisciplinary group of experts, an assessment of the confidence in this evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, and the consideration of additional factors when translating the evidence into recommendations. RESULTS: The results of seven systematic reviews inform the formulation of carbohydrate intake recommendations. The WHO recommends that carbohydrate intake should consist primarily of whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes. It also recommends an intake of at least 400 g of vegetables and fruit per day for adults and at least 250-400 g per day for children and young people, depending on their age. With regard to naturally occurring fiber, a daily intake of at least 25 g is recommended for adults and 15-25 g per day for children and adolescents, depending on age.

[WHO Recommendations for Care of the Preterm or Low-Birth-Weight Infant]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Versorgung von Frühgeborenen und Neugeborenen mit niedrigem Geburtsgewicht.

BACKGROUND: Premature infants (gestation age<37 weeks) and low-birth-weight infants (< 2.5 kg) require complex care to ensure their survival, growth and neurological development. Increased risk for developmental disorders, infections, and challenges with nutrition and body temperature regulation require comprehensive measures in care. AIM: The aim of this guideline was to improve the care of premature and low-birth-weight infants through updated recommendations. METHODS: The recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) have been implemented in this guideline in accordance with the WHO handbook for guideline development. This publication has been translated into German by staff members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: This guideline includes 11 strong and 14 conditional recommendations, of which 16 describe preventive and promotive care, 6 recommendations about care for complications and 3 for family involvement and support, as well as one statement of good practice.

[WHO Guidelines on Mental Health at Work]. / WHO-Leitlinie zur psychischen Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz.

The World Health Organization (WHO) published the "Guidelines on mental health at work" in September 2022. WHO developed the guidelines in accordance with WHO standards. The summary of this guideline was translated into German by the team of the WHO Collaborating Center for Evidence-based Medicine at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria) for use in German-speaking countries. An estimated 15+% of working-age adults have had some mental disorder at some point of time in their lives. This can lead to impaired capacity to work, resulting in reduction in productivity and performance, and ability to work safely, or in difficulties in retaining their jobs or obtaining gainful employment. The guidelines contain 12 recommendations. These provide evidence-based global public health guidance on organizational interventions, manager and worker training, and individual interventions for the promotion of positive mental health and prevention of mental health conditions, as well as recommendations on returning to work following absence associated with mental health conditions and gaining employment for people living with mental health conditions. Through the provision of these WHO recommendations, it is anticipated that the guidelines will facilitate national and workplace-level actions in the areas of policy development, service planning and delivery in the domains of mental and occupational health.

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce false-negative rates during screening. However, those opposed to it argue that performing supplemental ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 3 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy and harms, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies enrolling at least 500 women at average risk for breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 75. We also included studies where 80% of the population met our age and breast cancer risk inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available event rates. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies: one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and five retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 209,207 women with a follow-up duration from one to three years. The proportion of women with dense breasts ranged from 48% to 100%. Five studies used digital mammography; one study used breast tomosynthesis; and two studies used automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in addition to mammography screening. One study used digital mammography alone or in combination with breast tomosynthesis and ABUS or handheld ultrasonography. Six of the eight studies evaluated the rate of cancer cases detected after one screening round, whilst two studies screened women once, twice, or more. None of the studies assessed whether mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography led to lower mortality from breast cancer or all-cause mortality. High certainty evidence from one trial showed that screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography detects more breast cancer than mammography alone. The J-START (Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomised Trial), enrolling 72,717 asymptomatic women, had a low risk of bias and found that two additional breast cancers per 1000 women were detected over two years with one additional ultrasonography than with mammography alone (5 versus 3 per 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.94). Low certainty evidence showed that the percentage of invasive tumours was similar, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (69.6% (128 of 184) versus 73.5% (86 of 117); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09). However, positive lymph node status was detected less frequently in women with invasive cancer who underwent mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography than in women who underwent mammography alone (18% (23 of 128) versus 34% (29 of 86); RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence). Further, interval carcinomas occurred less frequently in the group screened by mammography and ultrasonography compared with mammography alone (5 versus 10 in 10,000 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89; 72,717 participants; high certainty evidence). False-negative results were less common when ultrasonography was used in addition to mammography than with mammography alone: 9% (18 of 202) versus 23% (35 of 152; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). However, the number of false-positive results and necessary biopsies were higher in the group with additional ultrasonography screening. Amongst 1000 women who do not have cancer, 37 more received a false-positive result when they participated in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography than with mammography alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50; high certainty evidence). Compared to mammography alone, for every 1000 women participating in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography, 27 more women will have a biopsy (RR 2.49, 95% CI 2.28 to 2.72; high certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies with methodological limitations confirmed these findings. A secondary analysis of the J-START provided results from 19,213 women with dense and non-dense breasts. In women with dense breasts, the combination of mammography and ultrasonography detected three more cancer cases (0 fewer to 7 more) per 1000 women screened than mammography alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.72; 11,390 participants; high certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of three cohort studies with data from 50,327 women with dense breasts supported this finding, showing that mammography and ultrasonography combined led to statistically significantly more diagnosed cancer cases compared to mammography alone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.56; 50,327 participants; moderate certainty evidence). For women with non-dense breasts, the secondary analysis of the J-START study demonstrated that more cancer cases were detected when adding ultrasound to mammography screening compared to mammography alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.68; 7823 participants; moderate certainty evidence), whilst two cohort studies with data from 40,636 women found no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on one study in women at average risk of breast cancer, ultrasonography in addition to mammography leads to more screening-detected breast cancer cases. For women with dense breasts, cohort studies more in line with real-life clinical practice confirmed this finding, whilst cohort studies for women with non-dense breasts showed no statistically significant difference between the two screening interventions. However, the number of false-positive results and biopsy rates were higher in women receiving additional ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. None of the included studies analysed whether the higher number of screen-detected cancers in the intervention group resulted in a lower mortality rate compared to mammography alone. Randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies with a longer observation period are needed to assess the effects of the two screening interventions on morbidity and mortality.

Video Teleconferencing for Disease Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Video teleconferencing (VTC) as a substitute for in-person health care or as an adjunct to usual care has increased in recent years. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of VTC visits for disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and to develop an evidence map describing gaps in the evidence. DATA SOURCES: Systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2013 to 3 March 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened the literature and identified 38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second investigator; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results from 20 RCTs rated low risk of bias or some concerns of bias show that the use of VTC for the treatment and management of specific diseases produces largely similar outcomes when used to replace or augment usual care. Nine of 12 studies where VTC was intended to replace usual care and 5 of 8 studies where VTC was intended to augment usual care found similar effects between the intervention and control groups. The remaining 6 included studies (3 intended to replace usual care and 3 intended to augment usual care) found 1 or more primary outcomes that favored the VTC group over the usual care group. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group. No studies evaluated the use of VTC for diagnosis or prevention of disease. Studies that reported harms found no differences between the intervention and control groups; however, many studies did not report harms. No studies evaluated the effect of VTC on health equity or disparities. LIMITATIONS: Studies that focused on mental health, substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management were excluded. Included studies were limited to RCTs with sample sizes of 50 patients or greater. Component analyses were not conducted in the studies. CONCLUSION: Replacing or augmenting aspects of usual care with VTC generally results in similar clinical effectiveness, health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life as usual care for areas studied. However, included trials were limited to a handful of disease categories, with patients seeking care for a limited set of purposes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

[WHO Guideline for Screening and Treatment of Cervical Pre-Cancerous Lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention (Second Edition)]. / WHO-Leitlinie zu Screening und Behandlung von präkanzerösen Zervixläsionen für die Prävention von Gebärmutterhalskrebs (2. Auflage).

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a major health concern worldwide. Cancer screenings for secondary prevention aim at reducing morbidity and mortality among women. Objective The guideline provides both an updated and an extended overview for the prevention of cervical cancer by screening and therapy. METHOD: The World Health Organization (WHO) developed this guideline in accordance with WHO standards. The respective executive summary was translated by a team of Austria's WHO Collaborating Centre. RESULTS: The updated and extended guideline contains 23 recommendations and seven good practice statements which address screening methods, test regimens, age groups, screening intervals and other topics. Target populations are adult females without known risk factors (general population) and women living with HIV. It is recommended that women from the general population undergo screening every five to ten years, starting at the age of 30. Women living with HIV are advised to get screened every three to five years, starting at the age of 25. Preferred primary screening tests are HPV DNA tests which may be supplemented with further tests in order to triage for further interventions.

[WHO Guideline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Hypertension in Adults]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Leitfaden für die medikamentöse Behandlung von Bluthochdruck bei Erwachsenen.

BACKGROUND: Every year, more people die from cardiovascular diseases than from any other cause. Hypertension significantly increases the risk of heart, brain, kidney, and other diseases. The last World Health Organization (WHO) guideline on hypertension was published in 1999 and is now outdated. OBJECTIVE: The new WHO guideline of 2021 provides the most up-to-date recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of adult patients with hypertension. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the WHO guideline translated into German and to summarize the main recommendations. METHOD: The guideline was developed by WHO in accordance with WHO standards. The executive summary was translated into German by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Evidence-based Medicine at the University of Continuing Education Krems (Austria). RESULTS: WHO provides recommendations on blood pressure thresholds for initiating pharmacological treatment, the performance of examinations before initiating treatment, the choice of medication, target blood pressure, the frequency of assessments, and treatment by nonphysician professionals. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based global public health guideline from WHO captures the most up-to-date key recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of hypertension in adults.

[Prevention of Mother-To-Child Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus: Guidelines on Antiviral Prophylaxis in Pregnancy]. / Prävention der Mutter-zu-Kind-Übertragung des Hepatitis-B-Virus: Leitlinie zur antiviralen Prophylaxe während der Schwangerschaft.

BACKGROUND: Most HBV-associated deaths among adults are secondary to infections acquired at birth or in the first five years of life. AIM: To extend the guideline for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of the hepatitis B virus to include antiviral prophylaxis. METHODS: The guideline was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in accordance with WHO standards. The summary was translated into German by employees of the WHO Collaborating Centre at Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS: In addition to the recommendation to test pregnant women for heptatitis B virus (HBV) and vaccinate newborns against hepatitis B as soon as possible after birth, two new recommendations have been formulated: pregnant women testing positive for HBV infection should receive tenofovir prophylaxis to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HBV. WHO recommends that in settings in which antenatal HBV DNA testing is not available, HBeAg testing can be used as an alternative to determine eligibility for tenofovir prophylaxis.

Point-of-Care Ultrasonography in Patients With Acute Dyspnea: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a common and often debilitating symptom with a complex diagnostic work-up. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in patients with acute dyspnea. (PROSPERO: CRD42019126419). DATA SOURCES: Searches of multiple electronic databases without language limitations (January 2004 to August 2020) and reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 44 prospective cohort-type studies in patients with acute dyspnea evaluated POCUS as a diagnostic tool to determine the underlying cause of dyspnea. Two investigators independently screened the literature for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second investigator; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias and determined certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Point-of-care ultrasonography, when added to a standard diagnostic pathway, led to statistically significantly more correct diagnoses in patients with dyspnea than the standard diagnostic pathway alone. In-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between patients who did or did not receive POCUS in addition to standard diagnostic tests. Finally, POCUS consistently improved the sensitivities of standard diagnostic pathways to detect congestive heart failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax; specificities increased in most but not all studies. LIMITATIONS: Most studies assessed diagnostic test accuracy, which has limited utility for clinical decision making. Studies rarely reported on the proportion of indeterminate sonography results, and no evidence is available on adverse health outcomes of false-positive or false-negative POCUS results. CONCLUSION: Point-of-care ultrasonography can improve the correctness of diagnosis in patients with acute dyspnea. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians.

Hormone Therapy for the Primary Prevention of Chronic Conditions in Postmenopausal Persons: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: It is uncertain whether hormone therapy should be used for the primary prevention of chronic conditions such as heart disease, osteoporosis, or some types of cancers. Objective: To update evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force on the benefits and harms of hormone therapy in reducing risks for chronic conditions. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries from January 1, 2016, through October 12, 2021; surveillance through July 2022. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies of fair or good quality. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; meta-analyses when at least 3 similar studies were available. Main Outcomes and Measures: Morbidity and mortality related to chronic conditions; health-related quality of life. Results: Twenty trials (N = 39 145) and 3 cohort studies (N = 1 155 410) were included. Participants using estrogen only compared with placebo had significantly lower risks for diabetes over 7.1 years (1050 vs 903 cases; 134 fewer [95% CI, 18-237]) and fractures over 7.2 years (1024 vs 1413 cases; 388 fewer [95% CI, 277-489]) per 10 000 persons. Risks per 10 000 persons were statistically significantly increased for gallbladder disease over 7.1 years (1113 vs 737 cases; 377 more [95% CI, 234-540]), stroke over 7.2 years (318 vs 239 cases; 79 more [95% CI, 15-159]), venous thromboembolism over 7.2 years (258 vs 181 cases; 77 more [95% CI, 19-153]), and urinary incontinence over 1 year (2331 vs 1446 cases; 885 more [95% CI, 659-1135]). Participants using estrogen plus progestin compared with placebo experienced significantly lower risks, per 10 000 persons, for colorectal cancer over 5.6 years (59 vs 93 cases; 34 fewer [95% CI, 9-51]), diabetes over 5.6 years (403 vs 482 cases; 78 fewer [95% CI, 15-133]), and fractures over 5 years (864 vs 1094 cases; 230 fewer [95% CI, 66-372]). Risks, per 10 000 persons, were significantly increased for invasive breast cancer (242 vs 191 cases; 51 more [95% CI, 6-106]), gallbladder disease (723 vs 463 cases; 260 more [95% CI, 169-364]), stroke (187 vs 135 cases; 52 more [95% CI, 12-104]), and venous thromboembolism (246 vs 126 cases; 120 more [95% CI, 68-185]) over 5.6 years; probable dementia (179 vs 91 cases; 88 more [95% CI, 15-212]) over 4.0 years; and urinary incontinence (1707 vs 1145 cases; 562 more [95% CI, 412-726]) over 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of hormone therapy in postmenopausal persons for the primary prevention of chronic conditions was associated with some benefits but also with an increased risk of harms.

Second-generation antidepressants for treatment of seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, or psychotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs, or psychotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2011. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (all years), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2011 to January 2020), together with the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all available years), for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We hand searched the reference lists of all included studies and other systematic reviews. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished/ongoing trials. We ran a separate update search for reports of adverse events in the Ovid databases.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy we included RCTs of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse events we also included non-randomised studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were conducted individually. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar, and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified no new RCT on the effectiveness of SGAs in SAD patients. We included 2 additional single-arm observational studies that reported on adverse events of SGAs.  For efficacy we included three RCTs of between five and eight weeks' duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse events we included two RCTs and five observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks' duration with a total of 249 participants. All participants met the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age ranged from 34 to 42 years, and the majority of participants were female (66% to 100%). Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine (20/36) was numerically superior to placebo (11/32) in achieving clinical response; however, the confidence interval (CI) included both a potential benefit as well as no benefit of fluoxetine (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.83, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials involving a total of 136 participants compared fluoxetine versus light therapy. Meta-analysis showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24, low-certainty evidence), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any eligible study comparing SGA with another SGA or with psychotherapy. Two RCTs and five non-randomised studies reported adverse event data on a total of 249 participants who received bupropion, fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, nefazodone, reboxetine, light therapy, or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse events, therefore caution is advised regarding interpretation of this information. Between 0% and 100% of participants who received an SGA suffered an adverse event, and between 0% and 25% of participants withdrew from the study due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo showing a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy suggesting equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precluded us from drawing any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further, larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs. Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. The data we obtained on adverse events is therefore not robust, and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 25% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the study early due to adverse events.