Improving care for rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review and critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II.

PURPOSE: Rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders associated with intellectual disability require lifelong multidisciplinary care. Clinical practice guidelines may support healthcare professionals in their daily practice, but guideline development for rare conditions can be challenging. In this systematic review, the characteristics and methodological quality of internationally published recommendations for this population are described to provide an overview of current guidelines and inform future efforts of European Reference Network ITHACA (Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism, and Congenital Anomalies). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Orphanet were systematically searched to identify guidelines for conditions classified as "rare genetic intellectual disability" (ORPHA:183757). Methodological quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: Seventy internationally published guidelines, addressing the diagnosis and/or management of 28 conditions, were included. The methodological rigor of development was highly variable with limited reporting of literature searches and consensus methods. Stakeholder involvement and editorial independence varied as well. Implementation was rarely addressed. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive, high-quality guidelines are lacking for many rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders. Use and transparent reporting of sound development methodologies, active involvement of affected individuals and families, robust conflict of interest procedures, and attention to implementation are vital for enhancing the impact of clinical practice recommendations.

Intermethod agreement of self-reports compared to register data collection for return to work and sickness absence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the intermethod agreement of self-reported vs. register data of 'sickness absence' (SA) and 'return to work' (RTW) outcome measurements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies reporting mean differences (MDs) and sensitivity and specificity for self-report vs. register data and an inductive analysis of the self-report question formulations. An information specialist searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO for studies published from inception to November 2022. Screening and data extraction was done by two authors independently. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included of which eighteen with an overall high risk of bias. Self-reports had a pooled MD of 1.84 SA days (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-3.41, I2 98%, 18 studies, 38,716 participants) compared to registries which varied among studies from 204 more to 17 days less. The median average sick leave in studies in the self-report group was 8 days (interquartile range 4-23 days). Being absent from work measured with self-report had a sensitivity of 0.83 (0.76-0.88 95% CI) and a specificity of 0.92 (0.88-0.94 95% CI) compared to registry data. The high heterogeneity amongst the studies could not be explained by recall time, gender, register type, prospective or retrospective self-reports, health problem, SA at baseline or risk of bias. Studies lacked standard outcome reporting, had unclearly formulated questions in self-reports and there was little information on the registers' quality. CONCLUSION: Current self-reports may differ from register-based absence data but in an inconsistent way. Due to inconsistency and high risk of bias the evidence is judged to be of very low certainty. Further research is needed to develop clear standard questions which can be used for SA and RTW self-reports. Quality of registers needs to be better evaluated. Percentage positive and negative agreement, MDs and 2 × 2 tables should be reported for studies investigating agreement between SA and RTW outcome measures.

Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions.

To foster research integrity (RI), research institutions should develop a continuous RI education approach, addressing various target groups. To support institutions to achieve this, we developed RI education guidelines together with RI experts and research administrators, exploring similarities and differences in recommendations across target groups, as well as recommendations about RI education using approaches other than formal RI training. We used an iterative co-creative process. We conducted four half-day online co-creation workshops with 16 participants in total, which were informed by the RI education evidence-base. In the first two workshops, participants generated ideas for guidelines' content, focusing on different target groups and various approaches to RI education. Based on this content we developed first drafts of the guidelines. Participants in the third and fourth workshop refined those drafts. We next organized a working group which further prioritized, reorganized, and optimized the content of the guidelines. We developed four guidelines on RI education focusing on (a) bachelor, master and PhD students; (b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; (c) other RI stakeholders; as well as (d) continuous RI education. Across guidelines, we recommend mandatory RI training; follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about RI; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in RI education; and evaluation of RI educational events. Our work provides experience-based co-created guidance to research institutions on what to consider when developing a successful RI education strategy. Each guideline is offered as a distinct, publicly available tool in our toolbox ( www.sops4ri.eu/toolbox ) which institutions can access, adapt and implement to meet their institution-specific RI education needs.Trial registration https://osf.io/zej5b .

Do prenatal factors shape the risk for dementia?: A systematic review of the epidemiological evidence for the prenatal origins of dementia.

PURPOSE: Prenatal factors such as maternal stress, infection and nutrition affect fetal brain development and may also influence later risk for dementia. The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an overview of all studies which investigated the association between prenatal factors and later risk for dementia. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for original human studies reporting on associations between prenatal factors and dementia from inception to 23 November 2022. Prenatal factors could be any factor assessed during pregnancy, at birth or postnatally, provided they were indicative of a prenatal exposure. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. We followed PRISMA guidelines for reporting. RESULTS: A total of 68 studies met eligibility criteria (including millions of individuals), assessing maternal age (N = 30), paternal age (N = 22), birth order (N = 15), season of birth (N = 16), place of birth (N = 13), prenatal influenza pandemic (N = 1) or Chinese famine exposure (N = 1), birth characteristics (N = 3) and prenatal hormone exposure (N = 4). We observed consistent results for birth in a generally less optimal environment (e.g. high infant mortality area) being associated with higher dementia risk. Lower and higher birth weight and prenatal famine exposure were associated with higher dementia risk. The studies on season of birth, digit ratio, prenatal influenza pandemic exposure, parental age and birth order showed inconsistent results and were hampered by relatively high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that some prenatal factors, especially those related to a suboptimal prenatal environment, are associated with an increased dementia risk. As these associations may be confounded by factors such as parental socioeconomic status, more research is needed to examine the potential causal role of the prenatal environment in dementia.

Which outcomes should always be measured in intervention studies for improving work participation for people with a health problem? An international multistakeholder Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for Work participation (COS for Work).

OBJECTIVE: Synthesising evidence of the effects of interventions to improve work participation among people with health problems is currently difficult due to heterogeneity in outcome measurements. A core outcome set for work participation is needed. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Following the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials methodology, we used a five-step approach to reach international multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set for work participation. Five subgroups of stakeholders took part in two rounds of discussions and completed two Delphi voting rounds on 26 outcomes. A consensus of ≥80% determined core outcomes and 50%-80% consensus was required for candidate outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-eight stakeholders took part in the Delphi rounds. Core outcomes were: 'any type of employment including self-employment', 'proportion of workers that return to work after being absent because of illness' and 'time to return to work'. Ten candidate outcomes were proposed, among others: 'sustainable employment', 'work productivity' and 'workers' perception of return to work'. CONCLUSION: As a minimum, all studies evaluating the impact of interventions on work participation should include one employment outcome and two return to work outcomes if workers are on sick leave prior to the intervention.

Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

The GIN-McMaster guideline tool extension for the integration of quality improvement and quality assurance in guidelines: a description of the methods for its development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop an extension of the widely used GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist and Tool for the integration of quality assurance and improvement (QAI) schemes with guideline development. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach incorporating evidence from a systematic review, an expert workshop and a survey of experts to iteratively create an extension of the checklist for QAI through three rounds of feedback. As a part of this process, we also refined criteria of a good guideline-based quality indicator. RESULTS: We developed a 40-item checklist extension addressing steps for the integration of QAI into guideline development across the existing 18 topics and created one new topic specific to QAI. The steps span from 'organization, budget, planning and training', to updating of QAI and guideline implementation. CONCLUSION: The tool supports integration of QAI schemes with guideline development initiatives and it will be used in the forthcoming integrated European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer. Future work should evaluate this extension and QAI items requiring additional support for guideline developers and links to QAI schemes.

A general framework for selecting work participation outcomes in intervention studies among persons with health problems: a concept paper.

BACKGROUND: Work participation is important for health and can be considered as engagement in a major area of life which is of significance for most people, but it can also be thought of as fulfilling or discharging a role. Currently, academic research lacks a comprehensive classification of work participation outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning is the foremost model in defining work functioning and its counterpart work disability, but it does not provide a critical (core) set of outcomes. Standardizing the definitions and nomenclature used in the research of work participation would ensure that the outcomes of studies are comparable, and practitioners and guideline developers can better decide what works best. As work participation is a broad umbrella term including outcome categories which need unambiguous differentiation, a framework needs to be developed first. AIM: To propose a framework which can be used to develop a generic core outcome set for work participation. METHODS: First, we performed a systematic literature search on the concept of (work) participation, views on how to measure it, and on existing classifications for outcome measurements. Next, we derived criteria for the framework and proposed a framework based on the criteria. Last, we applied the framework to six case studies as a proof of concept. RESULTS: Our literature search provided 2106 hits and we selected 59 studies for full-text analysis. Based on the literature and the developed criteria we propose four overarching outcome categories: (1) initiating employment, (2) having employment, (3) increasing or maintaining productivity at work, and (4) return to employment. These categories appeared feasible in our proof-of-concept assessment with six different case studies. CONCLUSION: We propose to use the framework for work participation outcomes to develop a core outcome set for intervention studies to improve work participation.

[Transparency in the body of evidence in medicine: developments of the GRADE method in the past ten years]. / Transparante wetenschappelijke onderbouwing van zorg.

GRADE ("Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation") provides a transparent framework to evaluate scientific evidence and to develop healthcare recommendations. The GRADE method has been further developed, its application has been significantly broadened and over 100 organizations have endorsed GRADE. In this article, we give an overview of the most important methodological developments and discuss the basic principles. The transparent approach to make it easier for users of evidence to assess the judgments behind recommendations is not only applicable to the EBM domains but also to other disciplines. The methods developments show that GRADE is still evolving, and is constantly being further developed based on the latest methodological insights and users perspective. GRADE is not an instrument to determine the "true" certainty of the evidence. The value of applying GRADE is that judgments about the quality of evidence and the considerations behind recommendations are structured, transparent and explicit.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Analytical frameworks in colorectal cancer guidelines: development of methods for systematic reviews, their application and practical guidance for their use.

OBJECTIVES: Analytical frameworks are graphical representation of the key questions answered by a systematic review and can support the development of guideline recommendations. Our objectives were to a) conduct a systematic review to identify, describe and compare all analytical frameworks published as part of a systematic and guideline development process related to colorectal cancer (CRC), and b) to use this case study to develop guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews of analytical frameworks. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify eligible studies in Medline and Embase from 1996 until December 2020. We also manually searched guideline databases and websites to identify all guidelines and systematic reviews in CRC that used an analytical framework. We assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. The systematic review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration CRD42020172117. RESULTS: We screened 34,505 records and identified 1,166 guidelines and 3,127 systematic reviews on CRC of which five met our inclusion criteria. These five publications included four analytical frameworks in colorectal cancer (one update). We also describe our methodological approach to systematic reviews for analytical frameworks and underlying concepts for developing analytical framework using a bottom-up or top-down approach. CONCLUSION: Few guidelines and systematic reviews are utilizing analytical frameworks in the development of recommendations. Development of analytical frameworks should begin with a systematic search for existing analytical frameworks and follow a structured conceptual approach for their development to support guideline recommendations. Our methods may be helpful in achieving these objectives.

Assessment of key characteristics, methodology, and effect size measures used in meta-analysis of human-health-related animal studies.

Since the early 1990s the number of systematic reviews (SR) of animal studies has steadily increased. There is, however, little guidance on when and how to conduct a meta-analysis of human-health-related animal studies. To gain insight about the methods that are currently used we created an overview of the key characteristics of published meta-analyses of animal studies, with a focus on the choice of effect size measures. An additional goal was to learn about the rationale behind the meta-analysis methods used by the review authors. We show that important details of the meta-analyses are not fully described, only a fraction of all human-health-related meta-analyses provided rationales for their decision to use specific effect size measures. In addition, our data may suggest that authors make post-hoc decisions to switch to another effect size measure during the course of their meta-analysis, and possibly search for significant effects. Based on analyses in this paper we recommend that review teams: 1) publish a review protocol before starting the conduct of a SR, prespecifying all methodological details (providing special attention to the planned meta-analysis including the effect size measure and the rational behind choosing a specific effect size, prespecifying subgroups and restricting the number of subgroup analyses), 2) always use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist to report your SR of animal studies, and 3) use the random effects model (REM) in human-health-related meta-analysis of animal studies, unless the assumptions for using the fixed effect model (FEM) are all met.

Clinicians' Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators for the Adoption of Non-Invasive Liver Tests for NAFLD: A Mixed-Method Study.

(1) Background: Given the high prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and the limitations of liver biopsies, multiple non-invasive tests (NITs) have been developed to identify non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients at-risk of progression. The availability of these new NITs varies from country to country, and little is known about their implementation and adoption in routine clinical practice. This study aims to explore barriers and facilitators that influence the adoption of NAFLD NITs, from healthcare professionals' perspectives. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using an exploratory mixed-methods approach. Twenty-seven clinicians from eight different countries with different specialties filled in our questionnaire. Of those, 16 participated in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and summarized using the recently published Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework for new medical technologies in healthcare organizations. (3) Results: Several factors were reported as influencing the uptake of NITs for NAFLD in clinical practice. Among those: insufficient awareness of tests; lack of practical guidelines and evidence for the performance of tests in appropriate patient populations and care settings; and absence of sufficient reimbursement systems were reported as the most important barriers. Other factors, most notably 'local champions', proper functional payment systems, and sufficient resources in academic hospitals, were indicated as important facilitating factors. (4) Conclusions: Clinicians see the adoption of NITs for NAFLD as a complex process that is modulated by several factors, such as robust evidence, practical guidelines, a proper payment system, and local champions. Future research could explore perspectives from other stakeholders on the adoption of NITs.

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers.

Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors' reasons for choosing specific WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut off points and varying definitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes for the evaluation of interventions.

An evaluation of the COVID-19 recommendation map identified diverging clinical and public health guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. RESULTS: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. CONCLUSION: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.

Symptom- and chest-radiography screening for active pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-negative adults and adults with unknown HIV status.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening in high-burden settings is recommended as a strategy for early detection of pulmonary tuberculosis disease, reducing mortality, morbidity and transmission, and improving equity in access to care. Questioning for symptoms and chest radiography (CXR) have historically been the most widely available tools to screen for tuberculosis disease. Their accuracy is important for the design of tuberculosis screening programmes and determines, in combination with the accuracy of confirmatory diagnostic tests, the yield of a screening programme and the burden on individuals and the health service. OBJECTIVES: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of questioning for the presence of one or more tuberculosis symptoms or symptom combinations, CXR, and combinations of these as screening tools for detecting bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis disease in HIV-negative adults and adults with unknown HIV status who are considered eligible for systematic screening for tuberculosis disease. Second, to investigate sources of heterogeneity, especially in relation to regional, epidemiological, and demographic characteristics of the study populations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and HTA (Health Technology Assessment) databases using pre-specified search terms and consulted experts for unpublished reports, for the period 1992 to 2018. The search date was 10 December 2018. This search was repeated on 2 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if participants were screened for tuberculosis disease using symptom questions, or abnormalities on CXR, or both, and were offered confirmatory testing with a reference standard. We included studies if diagnostic two-by-two tables could be generated for one or more index tests, even if not all participants were subjected to a microbacteriological reference standard. We excluded studies evaluating self-reporting of symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We categorized symptom and CXR index tests according to commonly used definitions. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 instrument. We examined the forest plots and receiver operating characteristic plots visually for heterogeneity. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities (and 95% confidence intervals (CI)) for each index test using bivariate random-effects methods. We analyzed potential sources of heterogeneity in a hierarchical mixed-model. MAIN RESULTS: The electronic database search identified 9473 titles and abstracts. Through expert consultation, we identified 31 reports on national tuberculosis prevalence surveys as eligible (of which eight were already captured in the search of the electronic databases), and we identified 957 potentially relevant articles through reference checking. After removal of duplicates, we assessed 10,415 titles and abstracts, of which we identified 430 (4%) for full text review, whereafter we excluded 364 articles. In total, 66 articles provided data on 59 studies. We assessed the 2 July 2021 search results; seven studies were potentially eligible but would make no material difference to the review findings or grading of the evidence, and were not added in this edition of the review. We judged most studies at high risk of bias in one or more domains, most commonly because of incorporation bias and verification bias. We judged applicability concerns low in more than 80% of studies in all three domains. The three most common symptom index tests, cough for two or more weeks (41 studies), any cough (21 studies), and any tuberculosis symptom (29 studies), showed a summary sensitivity of 42.1% (95% CI 36.6% to 47.7%), 51.3% (95% CI 42.8% to 59.7%), and 70.6% (95% CI 61.7% to 78.2%, all very low-certainty evidence), and a specificity of 94.4% (95% CI 92.6% to 95.8%, high-certainty evidence), 87.6% (95% CI 81.6% to 91.8%, low-certainty evidence), and 65.1% (95% CI 53.3% to 75.4%, low-certainty evidence), respectively. The data on symptom index tests were more heterogenous than those for CXR. The studies on any tuberculosis symptom were the most heterogeneous, but had the lowest number of variables explaining this variation. Symptom index tests also showed regional variation. The summary sensitivity of any CXR abnormality (23 studies) was 94.7% (95% CI 92.2% to 96.4%, very low-certainty evidence) and 84.8% (95% CI 76.7% to 90.4%, low-certainty evidence) for CXR abnormalities suggestive of tuberculosis (19 studies), and specificity was 89.1% (95% CI 85.6% to 91.8%, low-certainty evidence) and 95.6% (95% CI 92.6% to 97.4%, high-certainty evidence), respectively. Sensitivity was more heterogenous than specificity, and could be explained by regional variation. The addition of cough for two or more weeks, whether to any (pulmonary) CXR abnormality or to CXR abnormalities suggestive of tuberculosis, resulted in a summary sensitivity and specificity of 99.2% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.8%) and 84.9% (95% CI 81.2% to 88.1%) (15 studies; certainty of evidence not assessed). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The summary estimates of the symptom and CXR index tests may inform the choice of screening and diagnostic algorithms in any given setting or country where screening for tuberculosis is being implemented. The high sensitivity of CXR index tests, with or without symptom questions in parallel, suggests a high yield of persons with tuberculosis disease. However, additional considerations will determine the design of screening and diagnostic algorithms, such as the availability and accessibility of CXR facilities or the resources to fund them, and the need for more or fewer diagnostic tests to confirm the diagnosis (depending on screening test specificity), which also has resource implications. These review findings should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations in the included studies and regional variation in sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivity and specificity of an index test in a specific setting cannot be predicted with great precision due to heterogeneity. This should be borne in mind when planning for and implementing tuberculosis screening programmes.