Accuracy of prenatal and postnatal biomarkers for estimating gestational age: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Knowledge of gestational age (GA) is key in clinical management of individual obstetric patients, and critical to be able to calculate rates of preterm birth and small for GA at a population level. Currently, the gold standard for pregnancy dating is measurement of the fetal crown rump length at 11-14 weeks of gestation. However, this is not possible for women first presenting in later pregnancy, or in settings where routine ultrasound is not available. A reliable, cheap and easy to measure GA-dependent biomarker would provide an important breakthrough in estimating the age of pregnancy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of prenatal and postnatal biomarkers for estimating gestational age (GA). Methods: Systematic review prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020167727) and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-DTA. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and other databases were searched from inception until September 2023 for cohort or cross-sectional studies that reported on the accuracy of prenatal and postnatal biomarkers for estimating GA. In addition, we searched Google Scholar and screened proceedings of relevant conferences and reference lists of identified studies and relevant reviews. There were no language or date restrictions. Pooled coefficients of correlation and root mean square error (RMSE, average deviation in weeks between the GA estimated by the biomarker and that estimated by the gold standard method) were calculated. The risk of bias in each included study was also assessed. Findings: Thirty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 20 studies (2,050 women) assessed prenatal biomarkers (placental hormones, metabolomic profiles, proteomics, cell-free RNA transcripts, and exon-level gene expression), and 19 (1,738,652 newborns) assessed postnatal biomarkers (metabolomic profiles, DNA methylation profiles, and fetal haematological components). Among the prenatal biomarkers assessed, human chorionic gonadotrophin measured in maternal serum between 4 and 9 weeks of gestation showed the highest correlation with the reference standard GA, with a pooled coefficient of correlation of 0.88. Among the postnatal biomarkers assessed, metabolomic profiling from newborn blood spots provided the most accurate estimate of GA, with a pooled RMSE of 1.03 weeks across all GAs. It performed best for term infants with a slightly reduced accuracy for preterm or small for GA infants. The pooled RMSEs for metabolomic profiling and DNA methylation profile from cord blood samples were 1.57 and 1.60 weeks, respectively. Interpretation: We identified no antenatal biomarkers that accurately predict GA over a wide window of pregnancy. Postnatally, metabolomic profiling from newborn blood spot provides an accurate estimate of GA, however, as this is known only after birth it is not useful to guide antenatal care. Further prenatal studies are needed to identify biomarkers that can be used in isolation, as part of a biomarker panel, or in combination with other clinical methods to narrow prediction intervals of GA estimation. Funding: The research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-000368). ATP is supported by the Oxford Partnership Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre with funding from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR, the Department of Health, or the Department of Biotechnology. The funders of this study had no role in study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, in writing the paper or the decision to submit for publication.

Physical activity for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) to partake in physical activity are based on low-level evidence, do not incorporate evidence from all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and provide little information regarding potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of physical activity interventions in adults diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and to explore possible effect moderators including type, setting and nature of physical activity interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 5 November 2021. We handsearched reference lists and sought unpublished studies through trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs involving adults (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed with IBS and conducted in any setting comparing a physical activity intervention with no intervention, usual care or wait-list control group or another physical activity intervention group and assessing a validated measure of symptoms, quality of life or bowel movement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and synthesised data from other studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with data for 622 participants. Most (10/11) were set in high- or middle- to high-income countries, with five involving supervised physical activity, three unsupervised activity and three a mix of supervised and unsupervised activity. No trial was at low risk of bias. Four trials specified a minimally important difference for at least one assessed outcome measure. Data for 10 trials were obtained from published journal articles, with data for one obtained from an unpublished Masters degree thesis. Irritable bowel syndrome symptoms Six RCTs assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention compared with usual care on global symptoms of IBS. Meta-analysis of five studies showed an observed improvement in reported symptoms following physical activity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.44 to -0.42; 185 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low due to unclear and high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision from sparse data. This means physical activity may improve IBS symptoms but the evidence is very uncertain. The results of the remaining study supported the meta-analysis but were at unclear risk of bias and sample size was small. Two studies assessed the effectiveness of a yoga intervention compared with a walking intervention on global IBS symptoms. Meta-analysis of these two studies found no conclusive evidence of an effect of yoga compared with walking on IBS symptoms (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -3.93 to 1.62; 124 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of yoga interventions compared with walking interventions on IBS symptoms. Two studies assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention (yoga) compared with medication. One reported no observed difference in global IBS symptoms, though CIs were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the observed estimates and risk of bias was high (MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.65 to 0.25; 21 participants). We excluded IBS symptom data for the remaining study as it used a non-validated method. One study compared a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention and reported an observed improvement in symptoms with both interventions but neither intervention was superior to the other. Quality of life Five RCTs assessed the impact of physical activity on self-reported quality of life compared with usual care. Meta-analysis of data from four studies found no improvement in quality of life following a physical activity intervention (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.30 to 2.64; 134 participants; very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on quality-of-life outcomes in people with IBS. One study assessed the impact on quality of life of a yoga intervention compared with walking and observed an improvement in the yoga group (MD 53.45, 95% CI 38.85 to 68.05; 97 participants ).  One study reported no observed difference in quality of life between a yoga and a dietary intervention. Abdominal pain Two trials assessed the impact of physical activity compared with usual care on reported abdominal pain. Meta-analysis found no improvement in abdominal pain with physical activity compared with usual care (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.50; 64 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on abdominal pain in people with IBS. One study assessing the impact of a yoga intervention compared with walking advice reported no observed differences between groups on abdominal pain. One study comparing a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention found neither intervention had a more beneficial impact than the other and both interventions did not conclusively reduce abdominal pain. There was insufficient evidence to adequately assess adverse effects associated with physical activity due to a lack of reporting in trials. One study reported a musculoskeletal injury in a yoga intervention group but this did not result in withdrawal from the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a small body of evidence suggest that physical activity comprising of yoga, treadmill exercise or support to increase physical activity may improve symptoms but not quality of life or abdominal pain in people diagnosed with IBS but we have little confidence in these conclusions due to the very low certainty of evidence. The numbers of reported adverse events were low and the certainty of these findings was very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. Discussions with patients considering physical activity as part of symptom management should address the uncertainty in the evidence to ensure fully informed decisions. If deemed sufficiently important to patients and healthcare providers, higher quality research is needed to enable more certain conclusions.

A Systematic Review of Methodology Used in Studies Aimed at Creating Charts of Fetal Brain Structures.

Ultrasound-based assessment of the fetal nervous system is routinely recommended at the time of the mid-trimester anatomy scan or at different gestations based on clinical indications. This review evaluates the methodological quality of studies aimed at creating charts for fetal brain structures obtained by ultrasound, as poor methodology could explain substantial variability in percentiles reported. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from January 1970 to January 2021 to select studies on singleton fetuses, where the main aim was to construct charts on one or more clinically relevant structures obtained in the axial plane: parieto-occipital fissure, Sylvian fissure, anterior ventricle, posterior ventricle, transcerebellar diameter, and cisterna magna. Studies were scored against 29 predefined methodological quality criteria to identify the risk of bias. In total, 42 studies met the inclusion criteria, providing data for 45,626 fetuses. Substantial heterogeneity was identified in the methodological quality of included studies, and this may explain the high variability in centiles reported. In 80% of the studies, a high risk of bias was found in more than 50% of the domains scored. In conclusion, charts to be used in clinical practice and research should have an optimal study design in order to minimise the risk of bias and to allow comparison between different studies. We propose to use charts from studies with the highest methodological quality.

Application of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies in Assessing Mobile-Delivered Technologies for the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing role of digital health technologies (DHTs) in the management of chronic health conditions, specifically type 2 diabetes. It is increasingly important that health technologies meet the evidence standards for health care settings. In 2019, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published the NICE Evidence Standards Framework for DHTs. This provides guidance for evaluating the effectiveness and economic value of DHTs in health care settings in the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess whether scientific articles on DHTs for the self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus report the evidence suggested for implementation in clinical practice, as described in the NICE Evidence Standards Framework for DHTs. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of published articles and searched 5 databases to identify systematic reviews and primary studies of mobile device-delivered DHTs that provide self-management support for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The evidence reported within articles was assessed against standards described in the NICE framework. RESULTS: The database search yielded 715 systematic reviews, of which, 45 were relevant and together included 59 eligible primary studies. Within these, there were 39 unique technologies. Using the NICE framework, 13 technologies met best practice standards, 3 met minimum standards only, and 23 technologies did not meet minimum standards. CONCLUSIONS: On the assessment of peer-reviewed publications, over half of the identified DHTs did not appear to meet the minimum evidence standards recommended by the NICE framework. The most common reasons for studies of DHTs not meeting these evidence standards included the absence of a comparator group, no previous justification of sample size, no measurable improvement in condition-related outcomes, and a lack of statistical data analysis. This report provides information that will enable researchers and digital health developers to address these limitations when designing, delivering, and reporting digital health technology research in the future.

Risk of adverse coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes for people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether people living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality or adverse outcomes, and whether antiretroviral therapy (ART) influences this risk. DESIGN: Rapid review with meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. METHODS: We searched databases including Embase, Medline, medRxiv and Google Scholar up to 26 August 2020 for studies describing COVID-19 outcomes in PLWH and conducted a meta-analysis of higher quality studies. RESULTS: We identified 1908 studies and included 19 in the review. In a meta-analysis of five studies, PLWH had a higher risk of COVID-19 mortality [hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-2.34] compared with people without HIV. Risk of death remained elevated for PLWH in a subgroup analysis of hospitalized cohorts (hazard ratio 1.60, 95% CI: 1.12-2.27) and studies of PLWH across all settings (hazard ratio 2.08, 95% CI: 1.69-2.56). Eight other studies assessed the association between HIV and COVID-19 outcomes, but provided inconclusive, lower quality evidence due to potential confounding and selection bias. There were insufficient data on the effect of CD4+ T-cell count and HIV viral load on COVID-19 outcomes. Eleven studies reported COVID-19 outcomes by ART-regimen. In the two largest studies, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based regimens were associated with a lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, although these analyses are susceptible to confounding by co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: Emerging evidence suggests a moderately increased risk of COVID-19 mortality among PLWH. Further investigation into the relationship between COVID-19 outcomes and CD4+ T-cell count, HIV viral load, ART and the use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is warranted.

Performance of guidelines for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of the guidelines and diagnostic studies evaluating the recommended testing strategies.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated less resource-intensive testing guidelines to identify gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We performed a scoping review of the international evidence reporting the ability of diagnostic tests recommended during the pandemic to accurately identify patients with GDM, compared to pre-pandemic reference standards, and associated test and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out in Embase, LitCovid, Cochrane Covid-19 study register, and medRxiv on 14th June 2021. RESULTS: 145 unique citations were returned; after screening according to pre-specified inclusion criteria by title and abstract and then full text, 13 studies involving 40,836 pregnant people and an additional 52,884 instances of OGTT were included. Thresholds defined in the Australian pandemic guideline appear adequate to identify most GDM cases; false negative cases appeared at lower risk of hyperglycaemia-in-pregnancy(HIP)-related events. For UK and Canadian guidelines, a larger proportion would be misdiagnosed as non-GDM; these false negative cases had broadly equivalent HIP-related event rates as true positives. CONCLUSIONS: The OGTT remains the most effective test to identify abnormal glucose processing in pregnancy, supporting the prompt return to standard guidelines post-pandemic. Cohort studies investigating the impact of the change in guidelines on GDM pregnancies and associated outcomes are needed.

At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv, and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS-2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites. RESULTS: Of 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from - 6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 and 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post-symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond 10 days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias, so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.

Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age.

BACKGROUND: Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. OBJECTIVES: Primary • To assess effects on sedentary time of non-occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary • To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions • To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour • To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for community-dwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: device-measured sedentary time, self-report sitting time, self-report TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in high-income countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of self-report outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) -8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term (MD -51.37 min/d, 95% CI -126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very low-certainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-report sitting time in the short term (MD -64.12 min/d, 95% CI -260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium term (MD -12.45 min/d, 95% CI -50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; low-certainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI -0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD -0.25 kg/m², 95% CI -0.48 to -0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD -2.04 cm, 95% CI -9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; low-certainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and medium term (MD -0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in device-measured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI -4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve device-measured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI -7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve self-reported light-intensity PA in the short-term (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the short-term (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI -519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-reported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour.

Death audits and reviews for reducing maternal, perinatal and child mortality.

BACKGROUND: The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include reducing the global maternal mortality rate to less than 70 per 100,000 live births and ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under five years of age, in every country, by 2030. Maternal and perinatal death audit and review is widely recommended as an intervention to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality, and to improve quality of care, and could be key to attaining the SDGs. However, there is uncertainty over the most cost-effective way of auditing and reviewing deaths: community-based audit (verbal and social autopsy), facility-based audits (significant event analysis (SEA)) or a combination of both (confidential enquiry). OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of different types of death audits and reviews in reducing maternal, perinatal and child mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following from inception to 16 January 2019: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OvidSP, and five other databases. We identified ongoing studies using ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and searched reference lists of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomised trials, cluster non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies of any form of death audit or review that involved reviewing individual cases of maternal, perinatal or child deaths, identifying avoidable factors, and making recommendations. To be included in the review, a study needed to report at least one of the following outcomes: perinatal mortality rate; stillbirth rate; neonatal mortality rate; mortality rate in children under five years of age or maternal mortality rate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We planned to perform a meta-analysis using a random-effects model but included studies were not homogeneous enough to make pooling their results meaningful. MAIN RESULTS: We included two cluster-randomised trials. Both introduced death review and audit as part of a multicomponent intervention, and compared this to current care. The QUARITE study (QUAlity of care, RIsk management, and TEchnology) concerned maternal death reviews in hospitals in West Africa, which had very high maternal and perinatal mortality rates. In contrast, the OPERA trial studied perinatal morbidity/mortality conferences (MMCs) in maternity units in France, which already had very low perinatal mortality rates at baseline. The OPERA intervention in France started with an outreach visit to brief obstetricians, midwives and anaesthetists on the national guidelines on morbidity/mortality case management, and was followed by a series of perinatal MMCs. Half of the intervention units were randomised to receive additional support from a clinical psychologist during these meetings. The OPERA intervention may make little or no difference to overall perinatal mortality (low certainty evidence), however we are uncertain about the effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality related to suboptimal care (very low certainty evidence).The intervention probably reduces perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.95; 165,353 births; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on stillbirth rate, neonatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, maternal mortality or adverse effects was not reported. The QUARITE intervention in West Africa focused on training leaders of hospital obstetric teams using the ALARM (Advances in Labour And Risk Management) course, which included one day of training about conducting maternal death reviews. The leaders returned to their hospitals, established a multidisciplinary committee and started auditing maternal deaths, with the support of external facilitators. The intervention probably reduces inpatient maternal deaths (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 191,167 deliveries; moderate certainty evidence) and probably also reduces inpatient neonatal mortality within 24 hours following birth (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90; moderate certainty evidence). However, QUARITE probably makes little or no difference to the inpatient stillbirth rate (moderate certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the inpatient neonatal mortality rate after 24 hours, although the 95% confidence interval includes both benefit and harm (low certainty evidence). The QUARITE intervention probably increases the percent of women receiving high quality of care (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35 - 2.57, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, or adverse effects was not reported. We did not find any studies that evaluated child death audit and review or community-based death reviews or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention including maternal death audit and review, as well as development of local leadership and training, probably reduces inpatient maternal mortality in low-income country district hospitals, and probably slightly improves quality of care. Perinatal death audit and review, as part of a complex intervention with training, probably improves quality of care, as measured by perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care, in a high-income setting where mortality was already very low. The WHO recommends that maternal and perinatal death reviews should be conducted in all hospitals globally. However, conducting death reviews in isolation may not be sufficient to achieve the reductions in mortality observed in the QUARITE trial. This review suggests that maternal death audit and review may need to be implemented as part of an intervention package which also includes elements such as training of a leading doctor and midwife in each hospital, annual recertification, and quarterly outreach visits by external facilitators to provide supervision and mentorship. The same may also apply to perinatal and child death reviews. More operational research is needed on the most cost-effective ways of implementing maternal, perinatal and paediatric death reviews in low- and middle-income countries.

The protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, as treatment for COVID-19: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The HIV protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, has been used off-label to treat COVID-19. We aimed to synthesize the clinical evidence for lopinavir/ritonavir as a treatment for COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a rapid review by searching databases including PubMed, GoogleScholar, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, for COVID-19 studies comparing outcomes between patients who did and did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We identified five completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective cohort studies. Two large RCTs of 5,040 and 2,771 hospitalized adults with COVID-19 found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir influenced the primary outcome of mortality, or secondary outcomes including progression to mechanical ventilation or time to discharge. Results remained similar in all sub-group analyses including by age, gender, baseline ventilation and time since symptom onset. The three smaller RCTs (n=86-199) also found no evidence of a benefit in the primary outcomes of time to clinical improvement or time to viral clearance. The 14 observational studies included between 50 and 415 participants, and were limited by a lack of adjustment for potential confounding variables. The majority of these studies found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with improved mortality or other clinical outcomes, although results regarding viral clearance were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Good evidence from large clinical trials does not support using lopinavir/ritonavir to treat COVID-19 amongst hospitalized patients.

The diagnostic performance of current tumour markers in surveillance for recurrent testicular cancer: A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review.

In this diagnostic test accuracy systematic review we summarise the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of blood α-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in surveillance for testicular cancer recurrence in adults. We searched four electronic databases for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of HCG, AFP, and/or LDH in sufficient detail for sensitivity and specificity to be calculated by extracting a 2 × 2 table comparing biomarker positivity with testicular cancer recurrence. Screening, data extraction and QUADAS-2 quality assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. From 2406 studies, nine met our inclusion criteria. Eight reported data at the per-patient level. Sample sizes were small (range 5 to 449 patients) and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. In most studies the specificity for recurrence with AFP and HCG was high (90-100%) but sensitivity was often relatively low, suggesting that many recurrences would not be detected by tumour markers alone. The diagnostic performance of LDH appears poorer. Studies were methodologically weak, with probable selection, incorporation and partial verification bias, and many studies were excluded for not reporting on recurrence-free patients. Limitations including small sample sizes, high heterogeneity, and inconsistent and incomplete reporting mean these results must be interpreted with caution. Despite inclusion of biomarkers in international surveillance guidance, there remains a lack of high quality evidence about their accuracy, optimal thresholds, and the most effective surveillance strategy in relation to contemporary investigative modalities. Higher quality research using data from modern-day follow-up cohorts is necessary to identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary testing.

Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Practitioners who enhance how they express empathy and create positive expectations of benefit could improve patient outcomes. However, the evidence in this area has not been recently synthesised. Objective To estimate the effects of empathy and expectations interventions for any clinical condition. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Data sources Six databases from inception to August 2017. Study selection Randomised trials of empathy or expectations interventions in any clinical setting with patients aged 12 years or older. Review methods Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded quality of evidence using GRADE. Random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results We identified 28 eligible (n = 6017). In seven trials, empathic consultations improved pain, anxiety and satisfaction by a small amount (standardised mean difference -0.18 [95% confidence interval -0.32 to -0.03]). Twenty-two trials tested the effects of positive expectations. Eighteen of these (n = 2014) reported psychological outcomes (mostly pain) and showed a modest benefit (standardised mean difference -0.43 [95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.21]); 11 (n = 1790) reported physical outcomes (including bronchial function/ length of hospital stay) and showed a small benefit (standardised mean difference -0.18 [95% confidence interval -0.32 to -0.05]). Within 11 trials (n = 2706) assessing harms, there was no evidence of adverse effects (odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.63). The risk of bias was low. The main limitations were difficulties in blinding and high heterogeneity for some comparisons. Conclusions Greater practitioner empathy or communication of positive messages can have small patient benefits for a range of clinical conditions, especially pain. Protocol registration Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (protocol) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2.

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional labelling is advocated as a means to promote healthier food purchasing and consumption, including lower energy intake. Internationally, many different nutritional labelling schemes have been introduced. There is no consensus on whether such labelling is effective in promoting healthier behaviour. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of nutritional labelling for food and non-alcoholic drinks on purchasing and consumption of healthier items. Our secondary objective was to explore possible effect moderators of nutritional labelling on purchasing and consumption. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 13 electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 26 April 2017. We also handsearched references and citations and sought unpublished studies through websites and trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies: were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs/Q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies; compared a labelled product (with information on nutrients or energy) with the same product without a nutritional label; assessed objectively measured purchasing or consumption of foods or non-alcoholic drinks in real-world or laboratory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar interventions and outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and we synthesised data from other studies in a narrative summary. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 studies, comprising 17 RCTs, 5 Q-RCTs and 6 ITS studies. Most (21/28) took place in the USA, and 19 took place in university settings, 14 of which mainly involved university students or staff. Most (20/28) studies assessed the impact of labelling on menus or menu boards, or nutritional labelling placed on, or adjacent to, a range of foods or drinks from which participants could choose. Eight studies provided participants with only one labelled food or drink option (in which labelling was present on a container or packaging, adjacent to the food or on a display board) and measured the amount consumed. The most frequently assessed labelling type was energy (i.e. calorie) information (12/28).Eleven studies assessed the impact of nutritional labelling on purchasing food or drink options in real-world settings, including purchases from vending machines (one cluster-RCT), grocery stores (one ITS), or restaurants, cafeterias or coffee shops (three RCTs, one Q-RCT and five ITS). Findings on vending machines and grocery stores were not interpretable, and were rated as very low quality. A meta-analysis of the three RCTs, all of which assessed energy labelling on menus in restaurants, demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of 47 kcal in energy purchased (MD -46.72 kcal, 95% CI -78.35, -15.10, N = 1877). Assuming an average meal of 600 kcal, energy labelling on menus would reduce energy purchased per meal by 7.8% (95% CI 2.5% to 13.1%). The quality of the evidence for these three studies was rated as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies. Of the remaining six studies, only two (both ITS studies involving energy labels on menus or menus boards in a coffee shop or cafeteria) were at low risk of bias, and their results support the meta-analysis. The results of the other four studies which were conducted in a restaurant, cafeterias (2 studies) or a coffee shop, were not clearly reported and were at high risk of bias.Seventeen studies assessed the impact of nutritional labels on consumption in artificial settings or scenarios (henceforth referred to as laboratory studies or settings). Of these, eight (all RCTs) assessed the effect of labels on menus or placed on a range of food options. A meta-analysis of these studies did not conclusively demonstrate a reduction in energy consumed during a meal (MD -50 kcal, 95% CI -104.41, 3.88, N = 1705). We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies.Six laboratory studies (four RCTs and two Q-RCTs) assessed the impact of labelling a single food or drink option (such as chocolate, pasta or soft drinks) on energy consumed during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27, N = 732). However, the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies.There was no evidence that nutritional labelling had the unintended harm of increasing energy purchased or consumed. Indirect evidence came from five laboratory studies that involved mislabelling single nutrient content (i.e. placing low energy or low fat labels on high-energy foods) during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.14to 0.51, N = 718). The effect was small and the confidence intervals wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence from these studies as very low, providing very little confidence in the effect estimate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a small body of low-quality evidence suggest that nutritional labelling comprising energy information on menus may reduce energy purchased in restaurants. The evidence assessing the impact on consumption of energy information on menus or on a range of food options in laboratory settings suggests a similar effect to that observed for purchasing, although the evidence is less definite and also of low quality.Accordingly, and in the absence of observed harms, we tentatively suggest that nutritional labelling on menus in restaurants could be used as part of a wider set of measures to tackle obesity. Additional high-quality research in real-world settings is needed to enable more certain conclusions.Further high-quality research is also needed to address the dearth of evidence from grocery stores and vending machines and to assess potential moderators of the intervention effect, including socioeconomic status.

Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'.We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care.Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important.Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence).The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence).None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials.We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice.Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions.

A comparison of blood pressure in community pharmacies with ambulatory, home and general practitioner office readings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) readings are traditionally taken in a clinic setting, with treatment recommendations based on these measurements. The clinical interpretation of BP readings taken in community pharmacies is currently unclear. This study aimed to systematically review all literature comparing community pharmacy BP (CPBP) readings with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), home BP monitoring and general practitioner clinic readings. METHOD: Studies were included if they compared CPBP with at least one other measurement modality used for the diagnosis or management of hypertension. Mean CPBP readings were compared with other measurement modalities and summarized using random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was to compare CPBP with gold standard ABPM readings. RESULTS: Searches generated 3815 studies of which eight were included in the meta-analyses. The mean systolic CPBP-daytime ABPM difference was small [+1.6 mmHg (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 4.3) three studies, n = 319]. CPBP was significantly higher than 24-h ABPM [+7.8 mmHg (95% confidence interval 1.5-14.1) three studies n = 429]. Comparisons with general practitioner clinic readings (six studies, n = 2100) were inconclusive with significant heterogeneity between studies. CPBP and home BP monitoring readings (five studies, n = 1848) were nonsignificantly different. Diastolic comparisons mirrored systolic comparisons in all but the CPBP-daytime ABPM comparison, where CPBP was significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Current evidence around the clinical interpretation of CPBP is inconclusive. Although this review suggests that adopting the 135/85 mmHg threshold for hypertension might be reasonable and potentially result in a higher sensitivity for detecting patients with truly raised BP in pharmacies, the impact of this lower threshold on increased referrals to general practice clinics must be considered.

Clinical Characteristics of Pertussis-Associated Cough in Adults and Children: A Diagnostic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pertussis (whooping cough) is a highly infective cause of cough that causes significant morbidity and mortality. Existing case definitions include paroxysmal cough, whooping, and posttussive vomiting, but diagnosis can be difficult. We determined the diagnostic accuracy of clinical characteristics of pertussis-associated cough. METHODS: We systematically searched CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and SCI-EXPANDED/CPCI-S up to June 2016. Eligible studies compared clinical characteristics in those positive and negative for Bordetella pertussis infection, confirmed by laboratory investigations. Two authors independently completed screening, data extraction, and quality and bias assessments. For each characteristic, RevMan was used to produce descriptive forest plots. The bivariate meta-analysis method was used to generate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Of 1,969 identified papers, 53 were included. Forty-one clinical characteristics were assessed for diagnostic accuracy. In adult patients, paroxysmal cough and absence of fever have a high sensitivity (93.2% [CI, 83.2-97.4] and 81.8% [CI, 72.2-88.7], respectively) and low specificity (20.6% [CI, 14.7-28.1] and 18.8% [CI, 8.1-37.9]), whereas posttussive vomiting and whooping have low sensitivity (32.5% [CI, 24.5-41.6] and 29.8% [CI, 8.0-45.2]) and high specificity (77.7% [CI, 73.1-81.7] and 79.5% [CI, 69.4-86.9]). Posttussive vomiting in children is moderately sensitive (60.0% [CI, 40.3-77.0]) and specific (66.0% [CI, 52.5-77.3]). CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients, the presence of whooping or posttussive vomiting should rule in a possible diagnosis of pertussis, whereas the lack of a paroxysmal cough or the presence of fever should rule it out. In children, posttussive vomiting is much less helpful as a clinical diagnostic test.

Implications of Antibiotic Resistance for Patients' Recovery From Common Infections in the Community: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic use is the main driver for carriage of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The perception exists that failure of antibiotic treatment due to antibiotic resistance has little clinical impact in the community. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception to 15 April 2016 without language restriction. We included studies conducted in community settings that reported patient-level data on laboratory-confirmed infections (respiratory tract, urinary tract, skin or soft tissue), antibiotic resistance, and clinical outcomes. Our primary outcome was clinical response failure. Secondary outcomes were reconsultation, further antibiotic prescriptions, symptom duration, and symptom severity. Where possible, we calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals by performing meta-analysis using random effects models. RESULTS: We included 26 studies (5659 participants). Clinical response failure was significantly more likely in participants with antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli urinary tract infections (odds ratio [OR] = 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27-5.37; n = 2432 participants), Streptococcus pneumoniae otitis media (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.29-4.88; n = 921 participants), and S. pneumoniae community-acquired pneumonia (OR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.32-3.51; n = 916 participants). Clinical heterogeneity precluded primary outcome meta-analysis for Staphylococcus aureus skin or soft-tissue infections. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic resistance significantly impacts on patients' illness burden in the community. Patients with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant urinary and respiratory-tract infections are more likely to experience delays in clinical recovery after treatment with antibiotics. A better grasp of the risk of antibiotic resistance on outcomes that matter to patients should inform more meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals and patients about antibiotic treatment for common infections.

Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence.

Women are under-represented in academic medicine. We reviewed the empirical evidence focusing on the reasons for women's choice or rejection of careers in academic medicine. Using a systematic search, we identified 52 studies published between 1985, and 2015. More than half had methodological limitations and most were from North America. Eight main themes were explored in these studies. There was consistent evidence for four of these themes: women are interested in teaching more than in research; participation in research can encourage women into academic medicine; women lack adequate mentors and role models; and women experience gender discrimination and bias. The evidence was conflicting on four themes: women are less interested in research than men; women lose commitment to research as their education and training progress; women are deterred from academic careers by financial considerations; and women are deterred by concerns about work-life balance. Inconsistency of findings across studies suggests significant opportunities to overcome barriers by providing a more enabling environment. We identified substantial gaps in the scientific literature that could form the focus of future research, including shifting the focus from individuals' career choices to the societal and organisational contexts and cultures within which those choices are made; extending the evidence base to include a wider range of countries and settings; and testing the efficacy of interventions.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B-type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT-proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of NP-guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow-up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP-guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all-cause mortality using NP-guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP-guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all-cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP-guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure low-quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP-guided treatment while low-quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP-guided treatment for all-cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all-cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low-quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.