Are medical procedures that induce coughing or involve respiratory suctioning associated with increased generation of aerosols and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection? A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from aerosols generated by medical procedures is a cause for concern. AIM: To evaluate the evidence for aerosol production and transmission of respiratory infection associated with procedures that involve airway suctioning or induce coughing/sneezing. METHODS: The review was informed by PRISMA guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed for studies published between January 1st, 2003 and October 6th, 2020. Included studies examined whether nasogastric tube insertion, lung function tests, nasendoscopy, dysphagia assessment, or suctioning for airway clearance result in aerosol generation or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, MERS, or influenza. Risk of bias assessment focused on robustness of measurement, control for confounding, and applicability to clinical practice. FINDINGS: Eighteen primary studies and two systematic reviews were included. Three epidemiological studies found no association between nasogastric tube insertion and acquisition of respiratory infections. One simulation study found low/very low production of aerosols associated with pulmonary lung function tests. Seven simulation studies of endoscopic sinus surgery suggested significant increases in aerosols but findings were inconsistent; two clinical studies found airborne particles associated with the use of microdebriders/drills. Some simulation studies did not use robust measures to detect particles and are difficult to equate to clinical conditions. CONCLUSION: There was an absence of evidence to suggest that the procedures included in the review were associated with an increased risk of transmission of respiratory infection. In order to better target precautions to mitigate risk, more research is required to determine the characteristics of medical procedures and patients that increase the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Working for health? Evidence from systematic reviews on the effects on health and health inequalities of organisational changes to the psychosocial work environment.

OBJECTIVE: To map the health effects of interventions which aim to alter the psychosocial work environment, with a particular focus on differential impacts by socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, or age. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to identify, appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews (umbrella review) that examined the health effects of changes to the psychosocial work environment. Electronic databases, websites, and bibliographies, were searched from 2000-2007. Experts were also contacted. Identified reviews were critically appraised and the results summarised taking into account methodological quality. The review was conducted in the UK between October 2006 and December 2007. RESULTS: Seven systematic reviews were identified. Changes to the psychosocial work environment were found to have important and generally beneficial effects on health. Importantly, five reviews suggested that organisational level psychosocial workplace interventions may have the potential to reduce health inequalities amongst employees. CONCLUSION: Policy makers should consider organisational level changes to the psychosocial work environment when seeking to improve the health of the working age population.

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.

OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and methodological papers were identified from a search of electronic databases; handsearches of key medical journals and contact with experts working in the field. New empirical studies were conducted using data from two large randomised clinical trials. METHODS: Three systematic reviews and new empirical investigations were conducted. The reviews considered, in regard to non-randomised studies, (1) the existing evidence of bias, (2) the content of quality assessment tools, (3) the ways that study quality has been assessed and addressed. (4) The empirical investigations were conducted generating non-randomised studies from two large, multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and selectively resampling trial participants according to allocated treatment, centre and period. RESULTS: In the systematic reviews, eight studies compared results of randomised and non-randomised studies across multiple interventions using meta-epidemiological techniques. A total of 194 tools were identified that could be or had been used to assess non-randomised studies. Sixty tools covered at least five of six pre-specified internal validity domains. Fourteen tools covered three of four core items of particular importance for non-randomised studies. Six tools were thought suitable for use in systematic reviews. Of 511 systematic reviews that included non-randomised studies, only 169 (33%) assessed study quality. Sixty-nine reviews investigated the impact of quality on study results in a quantitative manner. The new empirical studies estimated the bias associated with non-random allocation and found that the bias could lead to consistent over- or underestimations of treatment effects, also the bias increased variation in results for both historical and concurrent controls, owing to haphazard differences in case-mix between groups. The biases were large enough to lead studies falsely to conclude significant findings of benefit or harm. Four strategies for case-mix adjustment were evaluated: none adequately adjusted for bias in historically and concurrently controlled studies. Logistic regression on average increased bias. Propensity score methods performed better, but were not satisfactory in most situations. Detailed investigation revealed that adequate adjustment can only be achieved in the unrealistic situation when selection depends on a single factor. CONCLUSIONS: Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies that are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical. Recommendations for further research include: applying the resampling methodology in other clinical areas to ascertain whether the biases described are typical; developing or refining existing quality assessment tools for non-randomised studies; investigating how quality assessments of non-randomised studies can be incorporated into reviews and the implications of individual quality features for interpretation of a review's results; examination of the reasons for the apparent failure of case-mix adjustment methods; and further evaluation of the role of the propensity score.

Interventions for improving communication with children and adolescents about their cancer.

BACKGROUND: Communication with children and adolescents with cancer about their disease and treatment and the implications of these is an important aspect of good quality care. It is often poorly performed in practice. Various interventions have been developed that aim to enhance communication involving children or adolescents with cancer. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of interventions to enhance communication with children and/or adolescents about their cancer, its treatment and their implications. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2003; MEDLINE (1966 to January week 2 2003); EMBASE (1985 to 2003 week 4); CINAHL (1982 to December week 4 2002); Dissertation Abstracts (1861 to January 2003); ERIC (1966 to January 2003); PsycINFO (1985 to January week 4 2003); Sociological Abstracts (1963 to January 2003).For the initial (2001) publication of this review we also searched the following databases: PsycLIT; Cancerlit;; Sociofile; Health Management Information Consortium; ASSIA; LISA; PAIS; Information Science Abstracts; JICST; Pascal; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Mental Health Abstracts; AMED; MANTIS. We also searched the bibliographies of studies assessed for inclusion, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and before and after studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to enhance communication with children and/or adolescents about their cancer, treatment and related issues. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data relating to the interventions, populations and outcomes studied and the design and methodological quality of included studies were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A narrative summary of the results is presented. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met the criteria for inclusion. They were diverse in terms of the interventions evaluated, study designs used, types of people who participated and the outcomes measured. One study of a computer-assisted education programme reported improvements in knowledge and understanding about blood counts and cancer symptoms. One study of a CD-ROM about leukemia reported an improvement in children's feelings of control over their health. One study of art therapy as support for children during painful procedures reported an increase in positive, collaborative behaviour. Two out of two studies of school reintegration programs reported improvements in some aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (one in anxiety and one in depression), social wellbeing (two in social competence and one in social support) and behavioural problems; and one reported improvements in physical competence. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to enhance communication involving children and adolescents with cancer have not been widely or rigorously assessed. The weak evidence that exists suggests that some children and adolescents with cancer may derive some benefit from specific information-giving programs and from interventions that aim to facilitate their reintegration into school and social activities. More research is needed to investigate the effects of these and other related interventions.

Recordings or summaries of consultations for people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many people find it difficult to remember information provided during medical consultations. One way of improving this may be to provide a record of the conversation. OBJECTIVES: This review examined the effects of providing recordings or summaries of their consultations to people with cancer and their families. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following sources: The Cochrane Library (issue 4 2002); MEDLINE (1966 to January week 1 2003); CINAHL (1982 to December week 4 2002); Dissertation Abstracts (1861 to week 2 2003); EMBASE (1985 to week 2 2003); PsycINFO (1967 to January week 2 2003); AMED (1985 to December 2002); and Sociological Abstracts (1998 to week 2 2003). For the initial (1999) publication of this review we also searched the following databases: Sociofile; Cancerlit; IAC Health & Wellness; JICST; Pascal; ERIC; ASSIA; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Mental Health Abstracts; CAB Health; DHSS-Data; MANTIS. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that evaluate the effects of providing recordings (e.g. audiotapes) or summaries (e.g. letter with reminders of key points) of consultations to people with cancer or their families. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. The quality of studies was assessed on six criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies satisfied the selection criteria. All involved adult participants. The studies did not all measure similar outcomes. In seven studies, between 83% and 96% of participants found recordings or summaries of their consultations valuable. Five out of nine studies reported better recall of information for those receiving recordings or summaries. Four out of seven studies found that participants provided with a recording or summary were more satisfied with the information received. No studies (out of seven) found any statistically significant effect on anxiety or depression. One study evaluated the effects on quality of life, but found no main effects. No study evaluated the effects on survival. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The provision of recordings or summaries of key consultations may benefit most adults with cancer. Although more research is needed to improve our understanding of these interventions, most patients find them very useful. Practitioners should consider offering people tape recordings or written summaries of their consultations

Interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: A variety of interventions have been used in the treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Currently, debate exists among health care professionals and patients about appropriate strategies for management. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of all interventions that have been evaluated for use in the treatment or management of CFS in adults or children. DATA SOURCES: Nineteen specialist databases were searched from inception to either January or July 2000 for published or unpublished studies in any language. The search was updated through October 2000 using PubMed. Other sources included scanning citations, Internet searching, contacting experts, and online requests for articles. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled trials (randomized or nonrandomized) that evaluated interventions in patients diagnosed as having CFS according to any criteria were included. Study inclusion was assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Of 350 studies initially identified, 44 met inclusion criteria, including 36 randomized controlled trials and 8 controlled trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was conducted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second. Validity assessment was carried out by 2 reviewers with disagreements resolved by consensus. A qualitative synthesis was carried out and studies were grouped according to type of intervention and outcomes assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of participants included in each trial ranged from 12 to 326, with a total of 2801 participants included in the 44 trials combined. Across the studies, 38 different outcomes were evaluated using about 130 different scales or types of measurement. Studies were grouped into 6 different categories. In the behavioral category, graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy showed positive results and also scored highly on the validity assessment. In the immunological category, both immunoglobulin and hydrocortisone showed some limited effects but, overall, the evidence was inconclusive. There was insufficient evidence about effectiveness in the other 4 categories (pharmacological, supplements, complementary/alternative, and other interventions). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the interventions demonstrated mixed results in terms of effectiveness. All conclusions about effectiveness should be considered together with the methodological inadequacies of the studies. Interventions which have shown promising results include cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy. Further research into these and other treatments is required using standardized outcome measures.