Provincial and territorial congenital anomalies surveillance: a summary of surveillance programs across Canada. / Surveillance provinciale et territoriale des anomalies congénitales : résumé des programmes de surveillance au Canada.

The Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance Network was established in 2002 to address gaps in the national surveillance of congenital anomalies (CAs) and support the sustainability of high-quality, population-based, CA surveillance systems within provinces and territories. This paper highlights the methodologies of each local CA surveillance system, noting similarities and variabilities between each system, to contribute to enhanced national CA surveillance efforts.

The Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance Network was established in 2002 under the umbrella of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System to support highquality, population-based congenital anomalies surveillance systems in Canada. Each local congenital anomalies surveillance system covers diverse populations and geography, operates under different structures and has varying program maturity. Engagement of every jurisdiction is essential for sustaining local and national CA surveillance. Provincial and territorial CA surveillance systems are uniquely positioned to support public health priorities.

Le Réseau canadien de surveillance des anomalies congénitales a été créé en 2002, dans le cadre du Système canadien de surveillance périnatale, afin de soutenir des systèmes de surveillance des anomalies congénitales de haute qualité et fondés sur la population à l'échelle du Canada. Les systèmes locaux de surveillance des anomalies congénitales couvrent des populations et des zones géographiques diverses, fonctionnent selon des structures différentes et ont une maturité variable. La participation de chaque administration est essentielle pour soutenir la surveillance locale et nationale des anomalies congénitales. Les systèmes provinciaux et territoriaux de surveillance des anomalies congénitales sont particulièrement bien placés pour soutenir les priorités en matière de santé publique.

Impact of employing primary healthcare professionals in emergency department triage on patient flow outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on the impact of employing primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: family physicians/general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NP) and nurses with increased authority) in the emergency department (ED) triage, on patient flow outcomes. METHODS: We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) (inception to January 2020). Our primary outcome was the time to provider initial assessment (PIA). Secondary outcomes included time to triage, proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS), length of stay (ED LOS), proportion of patients leaving against medical advice (LAMA), number of repeat ED visits and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment tool. RESULTS: From 23 973 records, 40 comparative studies including 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 pre-post studies were included. PHCP interventions were led by NP (n=14), GP (n=3) or nurses with increased authority (n=23) at triage. In all studies, PHCP-led intervention effectiveness was compared with the traditional nurse-led triage model. Median duration of the interventions was 6 months. Study quality was generally low (confounding bias); 7 RCTs were classified as moderate quality. Most studies reported that PHCP-led triage interventions decreased the PIA (13/14), ED LOS (29/30), proportion of patients LWBS (8/10), time to triage (3/3) and repeat ED visits (5/6), and increased the patient satisfaction (8/10). The proportion of patients LAMA did not differ between groups (3/3). Evidence from RCTs (n=8) as well as other study designs showed a significant decrease in ED LOS favouring the PHCP-led interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PHCP-led triage interventions improved ED patient flow metrics. There was a significant decrease in ED LOS irrespective of the study design, favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Evidence from well-designed high-quality RCTs is required prior to widespread implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020148053.

Customized guidance/training improved the psychometric properties of methodologically rigorous risk of bias instruments for non-randomized studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of guidance and training on the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR) and evaluator burden of the Risk of Bias (RoB) in Non-randomized Studies (NRS) of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, and the RoB instrument for NRS of Exposures (ROB-NRSE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a before-and-after study, seven reviewers appraised the RoB using ROBINS-I (n = 44) and ROB-NRSE (n = 44), before and after guidance and training. We used Gwet's AC1 statistic to calculate IRR and ICR. RESULTS: After guidance and training, the IRR and ICR of the overall bias domain of ROBINS-I and ROB-NRSE improved significantly; with many individual domains showing either a significant (IRR and ICR of ROB-NRSE; ICR of ROBINS-I), or nonsignificant improvement (IRR of ROBINS-I). Evaluator burden significantly decreased after guidance and training for ROBINS-I, whereas for ROB-NRSE there was a slight nonsignificant increase. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was benefit for guidance and training for both tools. We highly recommend guidance and training to reviewers prior to RoB assessments and that future research investigate aspects of guidance and training that are most effective.

Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department overcrowding: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding. METHODS: We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages). RESULTS: From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either 'within ED' (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or 'outside ED' interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The 'within ED' and 'outside ED' interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.

Implementation strategies in emergency management of children: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are vital for the uptake of evidence to improve health, healthcare delivery, and decision-making. Medical or mental emergencies may be life-threatening, especially in children, due to their unique physiological needs when presenting in the emergency departments (EDs). Thus, practice change in EDs attending to children requires evidence-informed considerations regarding the best approaches to implementing research evidence. We aimed to identify and map the characteristics of implementation strategies used in the emergency management of children. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We searched four databases [Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Wiley) and CINAHL (Ebsco)] from inception to May 2019, for implementation studies in children (≤21 years) in emergency settings. Two pairs of reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We performed a descriptive analysis of the included studies. RESULTS: We included 87 studies from a total of 9,607 retrieved citations. Most of the studies were before and after study design (n = 68, 61%) conducted in North America (n = 63, 70%); less than one-tenth of the included studies (n = 7, 8%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). About one-third of the included studies used a single strategy to improve the uptake of research evidence. Dissemination strategies were more commonly utilized (n = 77, 89%) compared to other implementation strategies; process (n = 47, 54%), integration (n = 49, 56%), and capacity building and scale-up strategies (n = 13, 15%). Studies that adopted capacity building and scale-up as part of the strategies were most effective (100%) compared to dissemination (90%), process (88%) and integration (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies on implementation strategies in emergency management of children have mostly been non-randomized studies. This review suggests that 'dissemination' is the most common strategy used, and 'capacity building and scale-up' are the most effective strategies. Higher-quality evidence from randomized-controlled trials is needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies in emergency management of children.

Methodologically rigorous risk of bias tools for nonrandomized studies had low reliability and high evaluator burden.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world interrater reliability (IRR), interconsensus reliability (ICR), and evaluator burden of the Risk of Bias (RoB) in Nonrandomized Studies (NRS) of Interventions (ROBINS-I), and the ROB Instrument for NRS of Exposures (ROB-NRSE) tools. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A six-center cross-sectional study with seven reviewers (2 reviewer pairs) assessing the RoB using ROBINS-I (n = 44 NRS) or ROB-NRSE (n = 44 NRS). We used Gwet's AC1 statistic to calculate the IRR and ICR. To measure the evaluator burden, we assessed the total time taken to apply the tool and reach a consensus. RESULTS: For ROBINS-I, both IRR and ICR for individual domains ranged from poor to substantial agreement. IRR and ICR on overall RoB were poor. The evaluator burden was 48.45 min (95% CI 45.61 to 51.29). For ROB-NRSE, the IRR and ICR for the majority of domains were poor, while the rest ranged from fair to perfect agreement. IRR and ICR on overall RoB were slight and poor, respectively. The evaluator burden was 36.98 min (95% CI 34.80 to 39.16). CONCLUSIONS: We found both tools to have low reliability, although ROBINS-I was slightly higher. Measures to increase agreement between raters (e.g., detailed training, supportive guidance material) may improve reliability and decrease evaluator burden.

Implementation strategies in emergency management of children: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Behavior change is not simple, and the introduction of guidelines or protocols does not mean that they will be followed. As such, implementation strategies are vital for the uptake and sustainability of changes in medical protocols. Medical or mental emergencies may be life-threatening, especially in children due to their unique physiological needs. In emergency departments (EDs), where timely decisions are often made, practice change requires thoughtful considerations regarding the best approaches to implementation. As there are many studies reporting on a wide variety of implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs, we aim to identify and map the characteristics of these studies. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review to identify various implementation strategies in the emergency management of children using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Wiley), and CINAHL (Ebsco), from inception to May 29, 2019, for implementation studies among the pediatric population (≤ 21 years) in a pediatric emergency setting. Two pairs of reviewers will independently select studies for inclusion and extract the data. We will perform a descriptive, narrative analysis of the characteristics of the identified implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: We will present specific characteristics and outcome measures of all included studies in a tabular form. The results of this review are expected to help identify and characterize successful implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/h6jv2.

The effect of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies on longer-term outcomes after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

PURPOSE: Blood transfusions are frequently administered in cardiac surgery. Despite a large number of published studies comparing a "restrictive" strategy with a "liberal" strategy, no clear consensus has emerged to guide blood transfusion practice in cardiac surgery patients. The purpose of this study was to identify, critically appraise, and summarize the evidence on the overall effect of restrictive transfusion strategies compared with liberal transfusion strategies on mortality, other clinical outcomes, and transfusion-related outcomes in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) from inception to 1 December 2017 and queried clinical trial registries and conference proceedings for randomized-controlled trials of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From 7,908 citations, we included ten trials (9,101 patients) and eight companion publications. Overall, we found no significant difference in mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies (risk ratio [RR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.54; I2 = 33%; seven trials; 8,661 patients). The use of a restrictive transfusion strategy did not appear to adversely impact any of the secondary clinical outcomes. As expected, the proportion of patients who received red blood cells (RBCs) in the restrictive group was significantly lower than in the liberal group (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.73; I2 = 56%; 5 trials; 8,534 patients). Among transfused patients, a restrictive transfusion strategy was associated with fewer transfused RBC units per patient than a liberal transfusion strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a restrictive transfusion strategy reduces RBC transfusion without impacting mortality rate or the incidence of other perioperative complications. Nevertheless, further large trials in subgroups of patients, potentially of differing age, are needed to establish firm evidence to guide transfusion in cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42017071440); registered 20 April, 2018.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les transfusions sanguines sont fréquentes après une chirurgie cardiaque. Malgré le nombre important d'études publiées comparant une stratégie « restrictive ¼ à une stratégie « libérale ¼, aucun consensus clair n'est apparu pour guider la pratique de la transfusion sanguine chez les patients de chirurgie cardiaque. L'objectif de cette étude était d'identifier, d'évaluer de façon critique et de résumer les données probantes sur l'effet global des stratégies de transfusion restrictives comparativement aux stratégies libérales sur la mortalité, les autres devenirs cliniques, et les devenirs liés à la transfusion chez des patients adultes subissant une chirurgie cardiaque. SOURCE: Nous avons réalisé des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) et Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) de leur création jusqu'au 1er décembre 2017 et avons exploré les registres d'études cliniques et les actes de conférence pour en tirer les études randomisées contrôlées évaluant des stratégies transfusionnelles restrictives vs libérales en chirurgie cardiaque. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Sur 7908 citations, nous avons inclus dix études (9101 patients) et huit publications connexes. Globalement, nous n'avons observé aucune différence significative en matière de mortalité entre les stratégies transfusionnelles restrictives et libérales (risque relatif [RR], 1,08; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,76 à 1,54; I2 = 33 %; sept études; 8661 patients). Le recours à une stratégie de transfusion restrictive n'a semblé avoir aucun impact négatif sur quelque résultat clinique secondaire que ce soit. Comme anticipé, la proportion de patients ayant reçu des érythrocytes dans le groupe restrictif était significativement plus basse que dans le groupe libéral (RR, 0,68; IC 95 %, 0,64 à 0,73; I2 = 56 %; 7 études; 8534 patients). Parmi les patients transfusés, une stratégie de transfusion restrictive a été associée à un nombre moindre d'unités d'érythrocytes transfusées par patient que dans une stratégie transfusionnelle libérale. CONCLUSION: Dans une population de patients adultes subissant une chirurgie cardiaque, une stratégie transfusionnelle restrictive réduit la transfusion d'érythrocytes sans avoir d'impact sur le taux de mortalité ou sur l'incidence d'autres complications périopératoires. D'autres grandes études sur différents sous-groupes de patients, peut-être d'âges différents, sont toutefois nécessaires afin d'établir des données probantes concluantes pour guider les transfusions en chirurgie cardiaque. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42017071440); enregistrée le 20 avril 2018.

Inter-rater reliability and validity of risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A new tool, "risk of bias (ROB) instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures (ROB-NRSE)," was recently developed. It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability in the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of the new ROB-NRSE tool. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus-evaluator burden). METHODS: Reviewers from four participating centers will apprise the ROB of a sample of NRSE publications using ROB-NRSE tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSE publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet's AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSE publications using both the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROB-NRSE tool. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall's tau coefficient. To measure evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply ROB-NRSE tool (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4, to manage and analyze study data, respectively. DISCUSSION: The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRSE depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of ROB-NRSE and how best to use it.

Resveratrol for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disorder that is characterised by insulin resistance and hyperglycaemia, which over time may give rise to vascular complications. Resveratrol is a plant-derived nutritional supplement shown to have anti-diabetic properties in many animal models. Less evidence is available on its safety and efficacy in the management of T2DM in humans. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of resveratrol formulations for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, as well as the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2018 for all databases. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effects of oral resveratrol (any dose or formulation, duration, or frequency of administration) with placebo, no treatment, other anti-diabetic medications, or diet or exercise, in adults with a diagnosis of T2DM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified and included RCTs, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study-level data. Study authors were contacted for any missing information or for clarification of reported data. We assessed studies for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs with a total of 50 participants. Oral resveratrol not combined with other plant polyphenols was administered at 10 mg, 150 mg, or 1000 mg daily for a period ranging from four weeks to five weeks. The comparator intervention was placebo. Overall, all three included studies had low risk of bias. None of the three included studies reported long-term, patient-relevant outcomes such as all-cause mortality, diabetes-related complications, diabetes-related mortality, health-related quality of life, or socioeconomic effects. All three included studies reported that no adverse events were observed, indicating that no deaths occurred (very low-quality evidence for adverse events, all-cause mortality, and diabetes-related mortality). Resveratrol versus placebo showed neutral effects for glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (mean difference (MD) 0.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.2; P = 0.09; 2 studies; 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Due to the short follow-up period, HbA1c results have to be interpreted cautiously. Similarly, resveratrol versus placebo showed neutral effects for fasting blood glucose levels (MD 2 mg/dL, 95% CI -2 to 7; P = 0.29; 2 studies; 31 participants), and resveratrol versus placebo showed neutral effects for insulin resistance (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.28; P = 0.27; 2 studies; 36 participants). We found eight ongoing RCTs with approximately 800 participants and two studies awaiting assessment, which, when published, could contribute to the findings of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, research is insufficient for review authors to evaluate the safety and efficacy of resveratrol supplementation for treatment of adults with T2DM. The limited available research does not provide sufficient evidence to support any effect, beneficial or adverse, of four to five weeks of 10 mg to 1000 mg of resveratrol in adults with T2DM. Adequately powered RCTs reporting patient-relevant outcomes with long-term follow-up periods are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of resveratrol supplementation in the treatment of T2DM.

Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I: protocol for a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane Bias Methods Group recently developed the "Risk of Bias (ROB) in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions" (ROBINS-I) tool to assess ROB for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability of the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus-evaluator burden). METHODS: Reviewers from four participating centers will appraise the ROB of a sample of NRSI publications using the ROBINS-I tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSI publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet's AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSI publications using both the New-castle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROBINS-I. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall's tau coefficient. To measure the evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply the ROBINS-I (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4 to manage and analyze study data, respectively. DISCUSSION: The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRS depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of the ROBINS-I tool and how best to use it.

Dairy product consumption and development of cancer: an overview of reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive systematic overview of current evidence from pooled analyses/meta-analyses and systematic reviews (PMASRs) pertaining to dairy consumption and incident cancer and/or all-cause or cancer-specific mortality. DESIGN: Overview of reviews. SETTING: Community setting. PARTICIPANTS: The unit of analysis is PMASRs. A total of 42 PMASRs was included in this overview of reviews. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: Any dairy product consumption (eg, milk, yogurt, etc). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcome measure is development of any type of cancer. Secondary outcome measures are all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: From 9693 citations identified, we included 42 PMASRs (52 study reports) published between 1991 and 2017. Thirty-one (74%) of these was pooled analyses/meta analyses, and only 11 (26%) were systematic reviews and meta-analyses. There was a wide variability in the type of study designs included within the other PMASRs, thus contributing to variable and, in instances, divergent estimates of cancer risk for several cancer subtypes. For example, only one systematic review and meta-analysis exclusively included prospective study designs. Most PMASRs were of low to moderate quality based on the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores. The median AMSTAR score was 5 (IQR 2-7). Our overview identified conflicting evidence from PMASRs on association between dairy consumption and incident cancers or mortality. Heterogeneity in summary estimates reflected the inclusion of variable study designs and overall low methodological quality of individual PMASRs. CONCLUSIONS: The association between dairy consumption and cancer risk has been explored in PMASRs with a variety of study designs and of low to moderate quality. To fully characterise valid associations between dairy consumption and risk of cancer and/or mortality rigorously conducted, PMASRs including only high-quality prospective study designs are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017078463.

Return on investment in healthcare leadership development programs.

Purpose Strong leadership has been shown to foster change, including loyalty, improved performance and decreased error rates, but there is a dearth of evidence on effectiveness of leadership development programs. To ensure a return on the huge investments made, evidence-based approaches are needed to assess the impact of leadership on health-care establishments. As a part of a pan-Canadian initiative to design an effective evaluative instrument, the purpose of this paper was to identify and summarize evidence on health-care outcomes/return on investment (ROI) indicators and metrics associated with leadership quality, leadership development programs and existing evaluative instruments. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework, searching eight databases from 2006 through June 2016. Findings Of 11,868 citations screened, the authors included 223 studies reporting on health-care outcomes/ROI indicators and metrics associated with leadership quality (73 studies), leadership development programs (138 studies) and existing evaluative instruments (12 studies). The extracted ROI indicators and metrics have been summarized in detail. Originality/value This review provides a snapshot in time of the current evidence on ROI indicators and metrics associated with leadership. Summarized ROI indicators and metrics can be used to design an effective evaluative instrument to assess the impact of leadership on health-care organizations.

Autologous Bone Marrow Stem Cell Therapy in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on bone marrow stem cell (BMSC) therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients have reported conflicting results. Our main objective was to critically appraise and meta-analyze best-available evidence on efficacy and safety of intracoronary administration of autologous BMSC therapy in STEMI patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Global Health, CINAHL, and conference proceedings in February 2017. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary and safety outcomes included cardiac death, heart failure, arrhythmias, repeat myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularizations; or improved health-related quality of life, left ventricular ejection fraction, or infarct size. Summary relative and absolute risks were obtained using random effects models. We also evaluated the strength of evidence. RESULTS: A comprehensive database search identified 42 RCTs (3365 STEMI patients). BMSC therapy did not significantly decrease mortality (risk ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.11; I2, 0%; absolute risk reduction, 0.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.71 to 0.91; 40 trials; 3289 participants; I2, 0%; low strength of evidence). BMSC therapy had no effect on secondary or adverse outcomes. Trial sequential analysis for all-cause mortality showed no evidence of a clinically important difference, with a very low probability that future studies can change the current conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of evidence from 42 RCTs published in the past 15 years, we provide conclusive evidence for a lack of beneficial effect for autologous BMSC therapy in patients with STEMI.

Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Nonnutritive sweeteners, such as aspartame, sucralose and stevioside, are widely consumed, yet their long-term health impact is uncertain. We synthesized evidence from prospective studies to determine whether routine consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners was associated with long-term adverse cardiometabolic effects. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library (inception to January 2016) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated interventions for nonnutritive sweeteners and prospective cohort studies that reported on consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners among adults and adolescents. The primary outcome was body mass index (BMI). Secondary outcomes included weight, obesity and other cardiometabolic end points. RESULTS: From 11 774 citations, we included 7 trials (1003 participants; median follow-up 6 mo) and 30 cohort studies (405 907 participants; median follow-up 10 yr). In the included RCTs, nonnutritive sweeteners had no significant effect on BMI (mean difference -0.37 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.10 to 0.36; I2 9%; 242 participants). In the included cohort studies, consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was associated with a modest increase in BMI (mean correlation 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06; I2 0%; 21 256 participants). Data from RCTs showed no consistent effects of nonnutritive sweeteners on other measures of body composition and reported no further secondary outcomes. In the cohort studies, consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was associated with increases in weight and waist circumference, and higher incidence of obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events. Publication bias was indicated for studies with diabetes as an outcome. INTERPRETATION: Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk. Further research is needed to fully characterize the long-term risks and benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-CRD42015019749.

Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma management guidelines recommend low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. The addition of anti-leukotriene agents to ICS offers a therapeutic option in cases of suboptimal control with daily ICS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotriene agents added to ICS compared with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS (in both arms) for adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with persistent asthma. Also, to determine whether any characteristics of participants or treatments might affect the magnitude of response. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP from inception to August 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older on a maintenance dose of ICS for whom investigators added anti-leukotrienes to the ICS and compared treatment with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (except when both groups tapered the dose of ICS, in which case the primary outcome was the % reduction in ICS dose from baseline with maintained asthma control). Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, lung function, asthma control, quality of life, withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review 37 studies representing 6128 adult and adolescent participants (most with mild to moderate asthma). Investigators in these studies used three leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs): montelukast (n = 24), zafirlukast (n = 11) and pranlukast (n = 2); studies lasted from four weeks to five years. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus same dose of ICSOf 16 eligible studies, 10 studies, representing 2364 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Anti-leukotriene agents given as adjunct therapy to ICS reduced by half the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.86; 815 participants; four studies; moderate quality); this is equivalent to a number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over six to 16 weeks of 22 (95% CI 16 to 75). Only one trial including 368 participants reported mortality and serious adverse events, but events were too infrequent for researchers to draw a conclusion. Four trials reported all adverse events, and the pooled result suggested little difference between groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; 1024 participants; three studies; moderate quality). Investigators noted between-group differences favouring the addition of anti-leukotrienes for morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), asthma symptoms and night-time awakenings, but not for reduction in ß2-agonist use or evening PEFR. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus higher dose of ICSOf 15 eligible studies, eight studies, representing 2008 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Results showed no statistically significant difference in the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39; 1779 participants; four studies; moderate quality) nor in all adverse events between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 1899 participants; six studies; low quality). Three trials reported no deaths among 834 participants. Results showed no statistically significant differences in lung function tests including morning PEFR and FEV1 nor in asthma control measures including use of rescue ß2-agonists or asthma symptom scores. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus tapering dose of ICSSeven studies, representing 1150 adults and adolescents, evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and tapering-dose of ICS compared with tapering-dose of ICS alone and contributed data. Investigators observed no statistically significant difference in % change from baseline ICS dose (mean difference (MD) -3.05, 95% CI -8.13 to 2.03; 930 participants; four studies; moderate quality), number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 542 participants; five studies; low quality) or all adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 1100 participants; six studies; moderate quality). Serious adverse events occurred more frequently among those taking anti-leukotrienes plus tapering ICS than in those taking tapering doses of ICS alone (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.92; 621 participants; two studies; moderate quality), but deaths were too infrequent for researchers to draw any conclusions about mortality. Data showed no improvement in lung function nor in asthma control measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents and adults with persistent asthma, with suboptimal asthma control with daily use of ICS, the addition of anti-leukotrienes is beneficial for reducing moderate and severe asthma exacerbations and for improving lung function and asthma control compared with the same dose of ICS. We cannot be certain that the addition of anti-leukotrienes is superior, inferior or equivalent to a higher dose of ICS. Scarce available evidence does not support anti-leukotrienes as an ICS sparing agent, and use of LTRAs was not associated with increased risk of withdrawals or adverse effects, with the exception of an increase in serious adverse events when the ICS dose was tapered. Information was insufficient for assessment of mortality.

Correction: Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165903.].

Behavior change interventions and policies influencing primary healthcare professionals' practice-an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: There is a plethora of interventions and policies aimed at changing practice habits of primary healthcare professionals, but it is unclear which are the most appropriate, sustainable, and effective. We aimed to evaluate the evidence on behavior change interventions and policies directed at healthcare professionals working in primary healthcare centers. METHODS: Study design: overview of reviews. DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EbscoHost), and grey literature (January 2005 to July 2015). STUDY SELECTION: two reviewers independently, and in duplicate, identified systematic reviews, overviews of reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and relevant health technology reports published in full-text in the English language. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: two reviewers extracted data pertaining to the types of reviews, study designs, number of studies, demographics of the professionals enrolled, interventions, outcomes, and authors' conclusions for the included studies. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies using the AMSTAR scale. For the comparative evaluation, we classified interventions according to the behavior change wheel (Michie et al.). RESULTS: Of 2771 citations retrieved, we included 138 reviews representing 3502 individual studies. The majority of systematic reviews (91%) investigated behavior and practice changes among family physicians. Interactive and multifaceted continuous medical education programs, training with audit and feedback, and clinical decision support systems were found to be beneficial in improving knowledge, optimizing screening rate and prescriptions, enhancing patient outcomes, and reducing adverse events. Collaborative team-based policies involving primarily family physicians, nurses, and pharmacists were found to be most effective. Available evidence on environmental restructuring and modeling was found to be effective in improving collaboration and adherence to treatment guidelines. Limited evidence on nurse-led care approaches were found to be as effective as general practitioners in patient satisfaction in settings like asthma, cardiovascular, and diabetes clinics, although this needs further evaluation. Evidence does not support the use of financial incentives to family physicians, especially for long-term behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: Behavior change interventions including education, training, and enablement in the context of collaborative team-based approaches are effective to change practice of primary healthcare professionals. Environmental restructuring approaches including nurse-led care and modeling need further evaluation. Financial incentives to family physicians do not influence long-term practice change.

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR. METHODS: Review of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3). RESULTS: Across all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases. CONCLUSION: RR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.