The impact of indoor pollution on asthma-related outcomes: A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines on environmental science for allergic diseases and asthma.

Systematic review using GRADE of the impact of exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), cleaning agents, mould/damp, pesticides on the risk of (i) new-onset asthma (incidence) and (ii) adverse asthma-related outcomes (impact). MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for indoor pollutant exposure studies reporting on new-onset asthma and critical and important asthma-related outcomes. Ninety four studies were included: 11 for VOCs (7 for incidenceand 4 for impact), 25 for cleaning agents (7 for incidenceand 8 for impact), 48 for damp/mould (26 for incidence and 22 for impact) and 10 for pesticides (8 for incidence and 2 for impact). Exposure to damp/mould increases the risk of new-onset wheeze (moderate certainty evidence). Exposure to cleaning agents may be associated with a higher risk of new-onset asthma and with asthma severity (low level of certainty). Exposure to pesticides and VOCs may increase the risk of new-onset asthma (very low certainty evidence). The impact on asthma-related outcomes of all major indoor pollutants is uncertain. As the level of certainty is low or very low for most of the available evidence on the impact of indoor pollutants on asthma-related outcomes more rigorous research in the field is warranted.

The impact of outdoor pollution and extreme temperatures on asthma-related outcomes: A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines on environmental science for allergic diseases and asthma.

Air pollution is one of the biggest environmental threats for asthma. Its impact is augmented by climate change. To inform the recommendations of the EAACI Guidelines on the environmental science for allergic diseases and asthma, a systematic review (SR) evaluated the impact on asthma-related outcomes of short-term exposure to outdoor air pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, O3, and CO), heavy traffic, outdoor pesticides, and extreme temperatures. Additionally, the SR evaluated the impact of the efficacy of interventions reducing outdoor pollutants. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-E tools and the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE. Short-term exposure to PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 probably increases the risk of asthma-related hospital admissions (HA) and emergency department (ED) visits (moderate certainty evidence). Exposure to heavy traffic may increase HA and deteriorate asthma control (low certainty evidence). Interventions reducing outdoor pollutants may reduce asthma exacerbations (low to very low certainty evidence). Exposure to fumigants may increase the risk of new-onset asthma in agricultural workers, while exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene may increase the risk of asthma-related ED visits (low certainty evidence). Heatwaves and cold spells may increase the risk of asthma-related ED visits and HA and asthma mortality (low certainty evidence).

Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Experience and satisfaction of colorectal cancer screening program participants are among the key factors that determine adherence to these programs. Understanding them is crucial to ensure future participation. OBJECTIVES: To explore and gain understanding on the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. METHODS: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. We conducted a literature search up to April 2023 in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis. We independently selected the studies for their inclusion, assessed their methodological quality (with CASP tool) and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. We thoroughly read the selected studies, and analyzed the data following a thematic synthesis approach. We evaluated the confidence in our findings with CERQUAL. RESULTS: We included six studies: four had an appropriate quality, and two had some methodological limitations. We identified five main findings across studies: (1) Variability in the concerns about the results; (2) Challenges regarding procedure logistics; (3) Care received from the healthcare professionals; (4) Being adequately informed; (5) Expectations and experience with the program. All findings had a moderate level of confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative review provides a picture of the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. Despite some logistical and expectation management issues, the overall satisfaction with the programs is high. More research is needed on the topic, as there are still important gaps in knowledge.

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis. RCT identification remains challenging because of limitations in their indexation in major databases and potential language bias. Scientific production in Latin American nursing is steadily increasing, but little is known about its design or main features. We aimed to identify the extent of evidence from RCTs in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams and evaluate their main characteristics, including potential risk of bias. DESIGN: Scoping review with risk of bias assessment. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review including a comprehensive electronic search in five relevant databases. We completed a descriptive data analysis and a risk of bias assessment of eligible studies using Cochrane's guidance. RESULTS: We identified 1784 references of which 47 were RCTs published in 40 journals. Twenty (42.6%) RCTs were published in journals in English. Chronic diseases were the most common health conditions studied (29.7%). Fifteen (31.9%) RCTs had a high risk of bias. Thirty (75%) journals were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) catalog and 5 (16.7%) were journals classified under nursing category. Twenty-one (52.5%) journals explicitly required CONSORT checklist recommendations for RCTs reporting. CONCLUSION: Publication of RCTs in nursing by Latin American authors has increased. Most journals where RCTs are published are in English and not specific to nursing. Searches in journals of other disciplines may be necessary to facilitate identification of RCTs in nursing. CONSORT statements need to be actively promoted to facilitate rigorous methodology and reporting of RCTs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study highlights the need for an increased research focus on RCTs in nursing in Latin America, and the importance of enhancing the reporting quality of these studies to support evidence-based nursing practice.

Impact of gestational diabetes mellitus treatment on medium/long-term outcomes after pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: We aimed to evaluate the effect of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment on medium/long-term outcomes both the mother and offspring. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on randomized clinical trials addressing specific treatment of women with GDM versus usual care and its impact on maternal and offspring outcomes at medium/long-term. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 8 October 2021. OUTCOME VARIABLES: maternal (diabetes, metabolic syndrome, 12 secondary); offspring (diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, high body mass index, 15 secondary). Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane tool and aggregation performed with Revman 5.4. RESULTS: We included five studies (1140 women, 767 offspring) with follow-up ranging 4-16 years after delivery. GDM treatment likely does not reduce risk of maternal diabetes (RR 1.00; [95% CI 0.82-1.23]) and may not reduce that of metabolic syndrome (RR 0.93; [95% CI 0.71-1.22]). We obtained very uncertain evidence that treatment may increase maternal HDL-cholesterol. Findings showed that GDM treatment may not have an impact on infants' outcomes (RRs 0.79; [95% CI 0.39-1.69] for impaired fasting glucose; RR 0.91; [95% CI 0.74-1.12] for body mass index >85th centile and 0.89; [95% CI 0.65-1.22] for body mass index >95th centile respectively). CONCLUSIONS: With current evidence is uncertain if specific treatment of women with GDM has an impact on medium/long-term metabolic outcomes either in the mother or in the offspring. These results add evidence to the recommendation of systematically reevaluating mother and offspring after delivery. REGISTRATION: OSF, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KFN79.

Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.

Systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a scoping review and evidence map.

PURPOSE: To identify, describe, and organise currently available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) (chemotherapy, targeted/biological therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and evidence mapping, adhering to PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. We included systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies evaluating SOTs compared to BSC or no treatment in patients with advanced PC. Two independent reviewers performed the screening process and data extraction. We developed evidence maps as an interactive visualization display, including the assessed interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 50,601 records obtained from our search, we included 43 studies: 2 SRs, 16 RCTs, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 20 observational studies, and 1 protocol for a quasi-experimental study. Forty-two studies reported survival-related outcomes and most favoured SOTs, while five reported toxicity and most favoured BSC. Other patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, were scarcely reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the current evidence gaps in studies assessing treatments for patients with advanced PC, mainly the lack of reports of non-survival-related outcomes, pointing out research areas that need further attention to make better recommendations for these patients.

Search strategies (filters) to identify systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase.

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases provide access to an international body of scientific literature in health and medical sciences. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for clinicians, researchers, consumers, and policymakers as they address a specific health-related question and use explicit methods to identify, appraise and synthesize evidence from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. Methodological search filters help database end-users search the literature effectively with different levels of sensitivity and specificity. These filters have been developed for various study designs and have been found to be particularly useful for intervention studies. Other filters have been developed for finding systematic reviews. Considering the variety and number of available search filters for systematic reviews, there is a need for a review of them in order to provide evidence about their retrieval properties at the time they were developed. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically empirical studies that report the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if one of their primary objectives is the development, evaluation, or comparison of a search filter that could be used to retrieve systematic reviews on MEDLINE, Embase, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-specified and piloted data extraction form using InterTASC Information Specialist Subgroup (ISSG) Search Filter Evaluation Checklist. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies that developed filters for MEDLINE and three studies that developed filters for Embase. Most studies are very old and some were limited to systematic reviews in specific clinical areas. Six included studies reported the sensitivity of their developed filter. Seven studies reported precision and six studies reported specificity. Only one study reported the number needed to read and positive predictive value. None of the filters were designed to differentiate systematic reviews on the basis of their methodological quality. For MEDLINE, all filters showed similar sensitivity and precision, and one filter showed higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited study reports that may affect accuracy assessments. The report of these studies had some limitations, and the assessments of their accuracy may suffer from indirectness, considering that they were mostly developed before the release of the PRISMA 2009 statement or due to their limited scope in the selection of systematic review topics. Search filters for MEDLINE Three studies produced filters with sensitivity > 90% with variable degrees of precision, and only one of them was developed and validated in a gold-standard database, which allowed the calculation of specificity. The other two search filters had lower levels of sensitivity. One of these produced a filter with higher levels of specificity (> 90%). All filters showed similar sensitivity and precision in the external validation, except for one which was not externally validated and another one which was conceptually derived and only externally validated. Search filters for Embase We identified three studies that developed filters for this database. One of these studies developed filters with variable sensitivity and precision, including highly sensitive strategies (> 90%); however, it was not externally validated. The other study produced a filter with a lower sensitivity (72.7%) but high specificity (99.1%) with a similar performance in the external validation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies reporting the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE showed similar sensitivity and precision, with one filter showing higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited information about how the filter was produced, which leaves us uncertain about their performance assessments. Newer filters had limitations in their methods or scope, including very focused subject topics for their gold standards, limiting their applicability across other topics. Our findings highlight that consensus guidance on the conduct of search filters and standardized reporting of search filters are needed, as we found highly heterogeneous development methods, accuracy assessments and outcome selection. New strategies adaptable across interfaces could enhance their usability. Moreover, the performance of existing filters needs to be evaluated in light of the impact of reporting guidelines, including the PRISMA 2009, on how systematic reviews are reported. Finally, future filter developments should also consider comparing the filters against a common reference set to establish comparative performance and assess the quality of systematic reviews retrieved by strategies.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE). MAIN RESULTS: A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR). Twelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias. No study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I2 = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm2, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I2 = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I2 = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I2 = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone. The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions to prevent adverse events in the intensive care unit: A review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Different types of interventions have been assessed for the prevention of adverse events. However, determining which patient-safety practice is most effective can be challenging when there is no systematised evidence synthesis. An overview following the best methodological standards can provide the best reliable integrative evidence. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide an overview of effectiveness nonpharmacological interventions aimed at preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit. METHODS: A review of systematic reviews (SRs) was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched for SRs published until March 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed the study's quality, using AMSTAR-2, and extracted data on intervention characteristics and effect on prevention of adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-seven SRs were included, and 27 nonpharmacological interventions were identified to prevent 11 adverse events. Most of the reviews had critically low methodological quality. Among all the identified interventions, subglottic secretion drainage, semirecumbent position, and kinetic bed therapy were effective in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia; the use of earplugs, early mobilisation, family participation, and music in reducing delirium; physical rehabilitation in improving muscle strength; use of respiratory support in preventing reintubation; the use of a computerised physician order entry system in reducing risk of medication errors; and the use of heated water humidifier was effective in reducing artificial airway occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Some nonpharmacological interventions reduced adverse events in the intensive care setting. These findings should be interpreted carefully due to the low methodological quality. SRs on preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit should adhere to quality assessment tools so that best evidence can be used in decision-making.

Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

BACKGROUND: Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Development and evaluation of a search filter to identify prognostic factor studies in Ovid MEDLINE.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are valuable resources as they address specific clinical questions by summarizing all existing relevant studies. However, finding all information to include in systematic reviews can be challenging. Methodological search filters have been developed to find articles related to specific clinical questions. To our knowledge, no filter exists for finding studies on the role of prognostic factor (PF). We aimed to develop and evaluate a search filter to identify PF studies in Ovid MEDLINE that has maximum sensitivity. METHODS: We followed current recommendations for the development of a search filter by first identifying a reference set of PF studies included in relevant systematic reviews on the topic, and by selecting search terms using a word frequency analysis complemented with an expert panel discussion. We evaluated filter performance using the relative recall methodology. RESULTS: We constructed a reference set of 73 studies included in six systematic reviews from a larger sample. After completing a word frequency analysis using the reference set studies, we compiled a list of 80 of the frequent methodological terms. This list of terms was evaluated by the Delphi panel for inclusion in the filter, resulting in a final set of 8 appropriate terms. The consecutive connection of these terms with the Boolean operator OR produced the filter. We then evaluated the filter using the relative recall method against the reference set, comparing the references included in the SRs with our new search using the filter. The overall sensitivity of the filter was calculated to be 95%, while the overall specificity was 41%. The precision of the filter varied considerably, ranging from 0.36 to 17%. The NNR (number needed to read) value varied largely from 6 to 278. The time saved by using the filter ranged from 13-70%. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a search filter for OVID-Medline with acceptable performance that could be used in systematic reviews of PF studies. Using this filter could save as much as 40% of the title and abstract screening task. The specificity of the filter could be improved by defining additional terms to be included, although it is important to evaluate any modification to guarantee the filter is still highly sensitive.

Art Therapy in Advanced Cancer. A Mapping Review of the Evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The benefits of arts in improving well-being in end-of-life patients have been stated by the WHO. To inspire clinical practice and future research, we performed a mapping review of the current evidence on the effectiveness of art therapy interventions in stage III and IV cancer patients and their relatives. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified 14 studies. Benefits reported by the authors were grouped as improved emotional and spiritual condition, symptom relief, perception of well-being, satisfaction, and helpfulness. As a body of evidence, notable limitations were observed: Only 1 study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and there was heterogeneity in the interventions and outcome measures. This mapping review highlights the evidence available on the effectiveness of art therapy in advanced cancer, which remains limited and presents specific challenges. It also provides a visual representation of the reported benefits, encouraging further and more rigorous investigation.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Interim opioid agonist treatment for opioid addiction: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is a public health problem and treatment variability, coverage and accessibility poses some challenges. The study's objective is to review the impact of interim opioid agonist treatment (OAT), a short-term approach for patients awaiting standard OAT, in terms of treatment retention, access to standard OAT, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL up to May 2020. Due to variability between studies and outcome measurements, we did not pool effect estimates and reported a narrative synthesis of findings rating their certainty according to GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 266 unique records and included five randomized trials with some limitations in risk of bias and one observational study limited by selection bias. The studies assessed similar approaches to interim OAT but were compared to three different control conditions. Four studies reported on treatment retention at 4 months or less with no significant differences between interim OAT and waiting list or standard OAT. Two studies reported treatment retention at 12 months with no differences between interim OAT and standard OAT. Two trials assessed access to standard OAT and showed significant differences between interim OAT and waiting list for standard OAT. We rated the quality of evidence for these outcomes as moderate due to the impact of risk of bias. Data on quality of life or satisfaction with treatment was suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: Interim OAT is likely more effective than a waiting list for standard OAT in access to treatment, and it is probably as effective as standard OAT regarding treatment retention. PROSPERO registration CRD42018116269.

Finding and evaluating randomised controlled trials in nursing conducted by Spanish research teams: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the main characteristics and the potential risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in nursing conducted by Spanish research teams. METHODS: Scoping review of an electronic search in three major databases (date of search: October 2021). For the eligible studies, both descriptive data, and data to assess the potential risk of bias, were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Of 3391 references retrieved, 199 were eligible. These RCTs were published in 122 journals, most of them in English (101, 82.1%) and were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) (107, 87.7%). Moreover, 32 (26.2%) of those included in the JCR were classified under nursing. Two thirds (81, 66.4%) of the journals followed the CONSORT guidelines. A total of 65 RCTs (33.7%) had a high overall risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Most of the identified RCTs were published in journals not specific to nursing and in English language. Also, shortcomings in RCT design and reporting were observed despite recommendations to adhere the CONSORT guidelines. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive identification of RCTs in nursing may require searching in journals other than nursing-related. RCTs from Spanish research teams are more likely to be published in international journals published in English. CONSORT should be strongly advised to encourage proper design and reporting of RCTs.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review for the EAACI biologicals guidelines.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important AD-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Seven RCTs including 1845 subjects >12 years treated with dupilumab 16 to 52 weeks were evaluated. For adults, there is high certainty that dupilumab decreases SCORAD (MD -30,72; 95% CI -34,65% to -26,79%) and EASI-75 (RR 3.09; 95% CI 2.45 to 3.89), pruritus (RR 2.96; 95% CI 2.37 to 3.70), rescue medication (RR 3.46; 95% CI 2.79 to 4.30), sleep disturbance (MD -7.29; 95% CI -8.23 to -6.35) and anxiety/depression (MD -3.08; 95% CI -4.41 to -1.75) and improves quality of life (MD -4.80; 95% CI -5.55 to -4.06). The efficacy for adolescents is similar. Dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) slightly increase (low certainty). The evidence for dupilumab-related serious AE is uncertain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 28 500 £ (low certainty) to 124 541 US$ (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020153645).

Efficacy and safety of treatment with omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria: A systematic review for the EAACI Biologicals Guidelines.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CSU-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Ten RCTs including 1620 subjects aged 12 to 75 years old treated with omalizumab for 16 to 40 weeks were evaluated. Omalizumab 150 mg does not result in clinically meaningful improvement (high certainty) of the urticaria activity score (UAS)7 (mean difference (MD) -5; 95%CI -7.75 to -2.25), and the itch severity score (ISS)7 (MD -2.15; 95% CI -3.2 to -1.1) does not increase (moderate certainty) quality of life (QoL) (Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); MD -2.01; 95%CI -3.22 to -0.81) and decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD -1.68; 95%CI -2.95 to -0.4). Omalizumab 300 mg results in clinically meaningful improvements (moderate certainty) of the UAS7 (MD -11.05; 95%CI -12.87 to -9.24), the ISS7 (MD -4.45; 95%CI -5.39 to -3.51), and QoL (high certainty) (DLQI; MD -4.03; 95% CI -5.56 to -2.5) and decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD -2.04; 95%CI -3.19 to -0.88) and drug-related serious AEs (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.20 to 2.91).

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals for severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of biologicals for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) compared with the standard of care. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CRSwNP-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. RCTs evaluated (dupilumab-2, omalizumab-4, mepolizumab-2, and reslizumab-1) included 1236 adults, with follow-up of 20-64 weeks. Dupilumab reduces the need for surgery (NFS) or oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.20-0.39, moderate certainty) and improves with high certainty smell evaluated with UPSIT score (mean difference (MD) +10.54; 95% CI +9.24 to +11.84) and quality of life (QoL) evaluated with SNOT-22 (MD -19.14; 95% CI -22.80 to -15.47), with fewer treatment-related adverse events (TAEs) (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.02, moderate certainty). Omalizumab reduces NFS (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.78-0.92, high certainty), decreases OCS use (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.10-1.38, moderate certainty), and improves high certainty smell (MD +3.84; 95% CI +3.64 to +4.04) and QoL (MD -15.65; 95% CI -16.16 to -15.13), with increased TAE (RR 1.73; 95% CI 0.60-5.03, moderate certainty). There is low certainty for mepolizumab reducing NFS (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.94) and improving QoL (MD -13.3; 95% CI -23.93 to -2.67) and smell (MD +0.7; 95% CI -0.48 to +1.88), with increased TAEs (RR 1.64; 95% CI 0.41-6.50). The evidence for reslizumab is very uncertain.