Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage. RESULTS: Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?

BACKGROUND: While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration. DISCUSSION: There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking. CONCLUSIONS: While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers.

Evidence surveillance for a living clinical guideline: Case study of the Australian stroke guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Continual evidence surveillance is an integral feature of living guidelines. The Australian Stroke Guidelines include recommendations on 100 clinical topics and have been 'living' since 2018. OBJECTIVES: To describe the approach for establishing and evaluating an evidence surveillance system for the living Australian Stroke Guidelines. METHODS: We developed a pragmatic surveillance system based on an analysis of the searches for the 2017 Stroke Guidelines and evaluated its reliability by assessing the potential impact on guideline recommendations. Search retrieval and screening workload are monitored monthly, together with the frequency of changes to the guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Evidence surveillance was guided by practical considerations of efficiency and sustainability. A single PubMed search covering all guideline topics, limited to systematic reviews and randomised trials, is run monthly. The search retrieves about 400 records a month of which a sixth are triaged to the guideline panels for further consideration. Evaluations with Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register demonstrated the robustness of adopting this more restrictive approach. Collaborating with the guideline team in designing, implementing and evaluating the surveillance is essential for optimising the approach. CONCLUSION: Monthly evidence surveillance for a large living guideline is feasible and sustainable when applying a pragmatic approach.

Prevention and control of non-communicable diseases in antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care: a systematic scoping review of clinical practice guidelines since 2011.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. The World Health Organization is developing new recommendations focusing on the management of NCDs for pregnant, intrapartum, and postnatal women. Thus, to support the development of new guidelines and recommendations, we aimed to determine the availability, focus, and scope of recommendations of current guidelines for the management of NCDs during pregnancy, intrapartum, and postnatal period. METHODS: PubMed, Global Index Medicus, TRIP, and Guideline International Network databases were searched on 31 May 2021, to identify any NCD-related guidelines published between 2011 and 2021 with no language or country restrictions. Websites of 165 professional organizations were also searched. Characteristics of included guidelines were analyzed, and recommendations were extracted from guidelines of five high-priority NCD conditions (diabetes, chronic hypertension, respiratory conditions, hemoglobinopathies and sickle cell disease, and mental and substance use disorders). RESULTS: From 6026 citations and 165 websites, 405 guidelines were included of which 132 (33%) were pregnancy-specific and 285 (88%) were developed in high-income countries. Among pregnancy-specific guidelines, the most common conditions for which recommendations were provided were gestational diabetes, circulatory diseases, thyroid disorders, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For the five high-priority conditions, 47 guidelines were identified which provided 1834 recommendations, largely focused on antenatal care interventions (62%) such as early detection, screening tools, pharmacological treatment, and lifestyle education. Postnatal recommendations largely covered postnatal clinical assessments, lifestyle education, and breastfeeding. Health system recommendations largely covered multidisciplinary care teams and strengthening referral pathways. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a robust assessment of currently available guidelines and mapping of recommendations on NCD management within maternal health services, which will inform the scope of the World Health Organization's future guideline development activities. This study identified a need to develop guidelines that consider NCDs holistically, with an integrated approach to antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care, and that are relevant for resource-limited contexts. Any such guidelines should consider what interventions are most essential to improving outcomes for women with NCDs and their newborns, and how variations in quality of NCD-related care can be addressed.

Care for adults with COVID-19: living guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up-to-date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID-19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce: pregnancy and perinatal guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than non-pregnant women of a similar age. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that evidenced-based guidance was needed, and that it would need to be updated rapidly. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce provided a resource to guide care for people with COVID-19, including during pregnancy. Care for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies was included as a priority when the Taskforce was set up, with a Pregnancy and Perinatal Care Panel convened to guide clinical practice. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: As of May 2022, the Taskforce has made seven specific recommendations on care for pregnant women and those who have recently given birth. This includes supporting usual practices for the mode of birth, umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, and using antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate as clinically indicated. There are 11 recommendations for COVID-19-specific treatments, including conditional recommendations for using remdesivir, tocilizumab and sotrovimab. Finally, there are recommendations not to use several disease-modifying treatments for the treatment of COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The recommendations are continually updated to reflect new evidence, and the most up-to-date guidance is available online (https://covid19evidence.net.au). CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINES: The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been a critical component of the infrastructure to support Australian maternity care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Taskforce has shown that a rapid living guidelines approach is feasible and acceptable.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Early-onset neonatal sepsis and antibiotic use in Indonesia: a descriptive, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and prompt antibiotic treatment are crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality of early-onset sepsis (EOS) in neonates. However, this strategy remains challenging due to non-specific clinical findings and limited facilities. Inappropriate antibiotics use is associated with ineffective therapy and adverse outcomes. This study aims to determine the characteristics of EOS and use of antibiotics in the neonatal-intensive care units (NICUs) in Indonesia, informing efforts to drive improvements in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of EOS. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted based on pre-intervention data of the South East Asia-Using Research for Change in Hospital-acquired Infection in Neonates project. Our study population consisted of neonates admitted within 72 h of life to the three participating NICUs. Neonates who presented with three or more clinical signs or laboratory results consistent with sepsis and who received antibiotics for 5 consecutive days were considered to have EOS. Culture-proven EOS was defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture. Type and duration of antibiotics used were also documented. RESULTS: Of 2,509 neonates, 242 cases were suspected of having EOS (9.6%) with culture-proven sepsis in 83 cases (5.0% of neonatal admissions in hospitals with culture facilities). The causative organisms were mostly gram-negative bacteria (85/94; 90.4%). Ampicillin / amoxicillin and amikacin were the most frequently prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with culture facilities, while a third-generation cephalosporin was mostly administered in hospital without culture facilities. The median durations of antibiotic therapy were 19 and 9 days in culture-proven and culture-negative EOS groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of EOS and culture-proven EOS was high in Indonesia, with diverse and prolonged use of antibiotics. Prospective antibiotic surveillance and stewardship interventions are required.

How frequently should "living" guidelines be updated? Insights from the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: "Living guidelines" are guidelines which are continually kept up to date as new evidence emerges. Living guideline methods are evolving. The aim of this study was to determine how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken for the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines. METHODS: Members of the Living Stroke Guidelines Development Group were invited to complete an online survey. Participants nominated one or more recommendation topics from the Living Stroke Guidelines with which they had been involved and answered questions about that topic, assessing whether it met criteria for living evidence synthesis, and how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken and why. For each topic we also determined how many studies had been assessed and included, and whether recommendations had been changed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven assessments were received from 33 respondents, covering half of the 88 guideline topic areas. Nearly all assessments (49, 86%) were that the continual updating process should be maintained. Only three assessments (5%) deemed that searches should be conducted monthly; 3-monthly (14, 25%), 6-monthly (13, 23%) and yearly (17, 30%) searches were far more frequently recommended. Rarely (9, 16%) were topics deemed to meet all three criteria for living review. The vast majority of assessments (45, 79%) deemed the topic a priority for decision-making. Nearly half indicated that there was uncertainty in the available evidence or that new evidence was likely to be available soon. Since 2017, all but four of the assessed topic areas have had additional studies included in the evidence summary. For eight topics, there have been changes in recommendations, and revisions are underway for an additional six topics. Clinical importance was the most common reason given for why continual evidence surveillance should be undertaken. Workload for reviewers was a concern, particularly for topics where there is a steady flow of publication of small trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that participants felt that the vast majority of topics assessed in the Living Stroke Guidelines should be continually updated. However, only a fifth of topic areas were assessed as conclusively meeting all three criteria for living review, and the definition of "continual" differed widely. This work has informed decisions about search frequency for the Living Stroke Guidelines and form the basis of further research on methods for frequent updating of guidelines.

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved. METHODS: We adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence. RESULTS: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Mindfulness-based psychological interventions for improving mental well-being in medical students and junior doctors.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness interventions are increasingly popular as an approach to improve mental well-being. To date, no Cochrane Review examines the effectiveness of mindfulness in medical students and junior doctors. Thus, questions remain regarding the efficacy of mindfulness interventions as a preventative mechanism in this population, which is at high risk for poor mental health.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions with a primary focus on mindfulness on the mental well-being and academic performance of medical students and junior doctors. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases (to October 2021) and conducted grey literature searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of mindfulness that involved medical students of any year level and junior doctors in postgraduate years one, two or three. We included any psychological intervention with a primary focus on teaching the fundamentals of mindfulness as a preventative intervention. Our primary outcomes were anxiety and depression, and our secondary outcomes included stress, burnout, academic performance, suicidal ideation and quality of life.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods as recommended by Cochrane, including Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB2).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies involving 731 participants in quantitative analysis.  Compared with waiting-list control or no intervention, mindfulness interventions did not result in a substantial difference immediately post-intervention for anxiety (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.52; P = 0.67, I2 = 57%; 4 studies, 255 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21-item self-report questionnaire (DASS-21) showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. Similarly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for depression (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.31; P = 0.62, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 250 participants; low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to DASS-21 showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. No studies reported longer-term assessment of the impact of mindfulness interventions on these outcomes.  For the secondary outcomes, the meta-analysis showed a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for stress, favouring the mindfulness intervention (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13; P < 0.05, I2 = 33%; 8 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. The meta-analysis found no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for burnout (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.00; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis found a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for academic performance (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P < 0.05, I² = 0%; 2 studies, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. Lastly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.32; 1 study, 167 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for three pre-specified outcomes of this review: deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. We assessed the certainty of evidence to range from low to very low across all outcomes. Across most outcomes, we most frequently judged the risk of bias as having 'some concerns'. There were no studies with a low risk of bias across all domains.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of mindfulness in our target population remains unconfirmed. There have been relatively few studies of mindfulness interventions for junior doctors and medical students. The available studies are small, and we have some concerns about their risk of bias. Thus, there is not much evidence on which to draw conclusions on effects of mindfulness interventions in this population. There was no evidence to determine the effects of mindfulness in the long term.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Prioritizing guideline recommendations for implementation: a systematic, consumer-inclusive process with a case study using the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based care remains a key challenge in clinical practice. Determining "what" to implement can guide implementation efforts. This paper describes a process developed to identify priority recommendations from clinical guidelines for implementation, incorporating the perspectives of both consumers and health professionals. A case study is presented where the process was used to prioritize recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines. METHODS: The process was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers following consultation with experts in the field of implementation and stroke care in Australia. Use of the process incorporated surveys and facilitated workshops. Survey data were analysed descriptively; responses to ranking exercises were analysed via a graph theory-based voting system. RESULTS: The four-step process to identify high-priority recommendations for implementation comprised the following: (1) identifying key implementation criteria, which included (a) reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendation, (b) capacity to measure change in practice, (c) a recommendation-practice gap, (d) clinical importance and (e) feasibility of making the recommended changes; (2) shortlisting recommendations; (3) ranking shortlisted recommendations and (4) reaching consensus on top priorities. The process was applied to the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines between February 2019 and February 2020. Seventy-five health professionals and 16 consumers participated. Use of the process was feasible. Three recommendations were identified as priorities for implementation from over 400 recommendations. CONCLUSION: It is possible to implement a robust process which involves consumers, clinicians and researchers to systematically prioritize guideline recommendations for implementation. The process is generalizable and could be applied in clinical areas other than stroke and in different geographical regions to identify implementation priorities. The identification of three clear priority recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines will directly inform the development and delivery of national implementation strategies.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.