A Review of Evidence Related to the Zoonotic Characteristics of the Monkeypox Virus.

The 2022 monkeypox virus (MPXV) outbreaks spurred global public health concern. In response, we undertook a living systematic review of its zoonotic characteristics, including potential reservoirs and susceptible species, transmissibility, and clinical presentation in nonhuman species. Electronic database searches yielded 148 eligible records published between 2000 and 2022. Primary reservoirs remain unidentified, with natural isolation identified in 2 species, the sooty mangabey monkey and rope squirrel. Transmission primarily occurs from animals to humans, but evidence of reverse zoonosis has emerged. Data on clinical infection and manifestations are sparse, with evidence of potentially susceptible species drawn primarily from experimental studies. Only 10% of articles were appropriate for quality assessment and most of these were rated as critically low. Overall, while evidence regarding MPXV exists, the quality of data are extremely poor, resulting in significant uncertainty regarding MPXV's zoonotic traits. High-quality empirical research to understand the impact of MPXV on animal and human populations is warranted.

Correction potential and outcome of various surgical procedures for hallux valgus surgery: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: More than 100 surgical techniques are described for hallux valgus (HV) correction, but the most appropriate technique remains debatable. The aim of this study was to develop and conduct a "living systematic review" for the outcome of surgically treated HV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The "living systematic review" was conducted per the PRISMA-P and PICOS guidelines and is the basis for the German AWMF S2e guideline "Hallux valgus" (033-018). Four common databases and the grey-literature were searched. Eligible were studies on adult patients comparing either two different primary surgical interventions or the same primary surgical intervention for different hallux valgus severities. The main outcome parameters were the osseous correction potential and the patient rated outcome. RESULTS: Out of 3022 studies, 46 studies (100 arms) were included. The meta-analysis included 31 studies (53 arms). The IMA (1933 procedures) improved on average by 7.3°, without significant group differences. The HVA (1883 procedures) improved on average by 18.9°, with significantly better results for third generation MIS (21.2°). The AOFAS (1338 procedures) improved on average by 33.8 points without significant group differences. The meta-regression revealed constant AOFAS scores over time. 69%/39% of the correction potential for the IMA/HVA could be explained by the preoperative values and 82% of the AOFAS improvement by the preoperative AOFAS scores. CONCLUSION: Open and minimally invasive techniques are powerful tools to correct hallux valgus deformity. Third generation MIS procedures revealed a possible superiority for the correction of the HVA. The AOFAS improvement appeared to be constant over time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I; living systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).

Living systematic review and meta-analysis of plasma-concentrations of antipsychotic drugs in carriers and non-carriers of variant CYP450 genotypes: Living systematic review protocol.

Introduction: Carriers of variant alleles of genes that encode liver CYP450 and UGT enzymes may experience abnormal plasma levels of antipsychotics and, consequently, worse efficacy or tolerability. Although pharmacogenomics is a rapidly developing field, current guidelines often rely on limited, underpowered evidence. We have previously demonstrated that meta-analysis is a viable strategy for overcoming this problem. Here, we propose a project that will expand our previous work and create a living systematic review and meta-analysis of drug plasma level differences between carriers and non-carriers of variant genotype-predicted phenotypes for every pharmacokinetic drug-gene interaction relevant to commonly used antipsychotic drugs. Protocol: First, a baseline systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted by searching for observational pharmacogenomics-pharmacokinetic studies. Data on dose-adjusted drug plasma levels will be extracted, and participants will be grouped based on their genotype for each drug-gene pair separately. Differences in plasma drug levels between different phenotypes will be compared using a random-effect ratio-of-means meta-analysis. The risk of bias will be assessed using ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using GRADE. Following the establishment of baseline results, the literature search will be re-run at least once every six months, and the baseline data will be updated and re-evaluated as new evidence is published. A freely available website will be designated to present up-to-date results and conclusions. Discussion: This systematic review will provide evidence-based results that are continuously updated with evidence as it emerges in the rapidly developing field of pharmacogenomics. These results may help psychiatrists in their decision-making, as clinicians are becoming increasingly aware of the patients' genetic data as testing becomes more widespread and cheaper. In addition, the results may serve as a scientific basis for the development of evidence-based pharmacogenomics algorithms for personalized dosing of antipsychotics to mitigate potentially harmful drug-gene interactions.

Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Departments to Improve Wait Times: Protocol for an Integrative Living Review.

BACKGROUND: Long wait times in the emergency department (ED) are a major issue for health care systems all over the world. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) is a novel strategy to reduce ED wait times when compared to the interventions included in previous research endeavors. To date, comprehensive systematic reviews that include studies involving AI applications in the context of EDs have covered a wide range of AI implementation issues. However, the lack of an iterative update strategy limits the use of these reviews. Since the subject of AI development is cutting edge and is continuously changing, reviews in this area must be frequently updated to remain relevant. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a summary of the evidence that is currently available regarding how AI can affect ED wait times; discuss the applications of AI in improving wait times; and periodically assess the depth, breadth, and quality of the evidence supporting the application of AI in reducing ED wait times. METHODS: We plan to conduct a living systematic review (LSR). Our strategy involves conducting continuous monitoring of evidence, with biannual search updates and annual review updates. Upon completing the initial round of the review, we will refine the search strategy and establish clear schedules for updating the LSR. An interpretive synthesis using Whittemore and Knafl's framework will be performed to compile and summarize the findings. The review will be carried out using an integrated knowledge translation strategy, and knowledge users will be involved at all stages of the review to guarantee applicability, usability, and clarity of purpose. RESULTS: The literature search was completed by September 22, 2023, and identified 17,569 articles. The title and abstract screening were completed by December 9, 2023. In total, 70 papers were eligible. The full-text screening is in progress. CONCLUSIONS: The review will summarize AI applications that improve ED wait time. The LSR enables researchers to maintain high methodological rigor while enhancing the timeliness, applicability, and value of the review. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52612.

Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart. The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.

Experience report of two living systematic Cochrane reviews on COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) are essential for making evidence-based decisions. During the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a particular need for up-to-date evidence, making the living systematic review (LSR) approach an appropriate review type. However, this approach poses certain challenges. OBJECTIVE AND OUTLINE: We aim to provide practice insights and report challenges that we faced while conducting two Cochrane LSRs on COVID-19 treatments with (i) convalescent plasma and (ii) systemic corticosteroids. We address our objective with an experience report and share challenges of the following components based on Iannizzi et al. (2022): study design, publication types, intervention/comparator, outcomes, search strategy, review updates and transparent reporting of differences between review updates. RESULTS: Regarding the study design, the plasma LSR included different study designs because RCT data were not available at the beginning of the pandemic, whereas for the corticosteroids LSR, which started several months later, RCT data were already available. The challenges in both LSRs included the publication types (preprints were included with caution) and the intervention/comparator, for instance the unavailability of standard of care for either LSR, or SARS-CoV-2 variants occurrence. Further challenges in both LSRs occurred in the components "outcome sets" (which had to be adjusted) and "literature search". The decision criteria for updating were based on important studies and available resources in both LSRs and policy relevance in the plasma LSR. Transparent reporting of the differences between the various update versions were discussed for both LSRs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In summary, there are similarities and differences regarding challenges of review components for both LSRs. It is important to keep in mind that the two LSR examples presented here were conducted in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, many of the challenges are attributable to the pandemic and are not specific to LSRs, such as constant adjustments of the outcome sets or changes in the database search. Nevertheless, we believe that some of these aspects are helpful for LSR authors and are applicable to other LSRs outside the pandemic context, particularly in areas where new evidence is rapidly emerging.

Impacts for health and care workers of Covid-19 and other public health emergencies of international concern: living systematic review, meta-analysis and policy recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Health and care workers (HCW) faced the double burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: as members of a society affected by a public health emergency and as HWC who experienced fear of becoming infected and of infecting others, stigma, violence, increased workloads, changes in scope of practice, among others. To understand the short and long-term impacts in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) on HCW and relevant interventions to address them, we designed and conducted a living systematic review (LSR). METHODS: We reviewed literature retrieved from MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, the World Health Organization COVID-19 database, the ClinicalTrials.org and the ILO database, published from January 2000 until December 2021. We included quantitative observational studies, experimental studies, quasi-experimental, mixed methods or qualitative studies; addressing mental, physical health and well-being and quality of life. The review targeted HCW; and interventions and exposures, implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic or other PHEICs. To assess the risk of bias of included studies, we used the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were qualitatively synthetized using meta-aggregation and meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled prevalence of some of the outcomes. RESULTS: The 1013 studies included in the review were mainly quantitative research, cross-sectional, with medium risk of bias/quality, addressing at least one of the following: mental health issue, violence, physical health and well-being, and quality of life. Additionally, interventions to address short- and long-term impact of PHEICs on HCW included in the review, although scarce, were mainly behavioral and individual oriented, aimed at improving mental health through the development of individual interventions. A lack of interventions addressing organizational or systemic bottlenecks was noted. DISCUSSION: PHEICs impacted the mental and physical health of HCW with the greatest toll on mental health. The impact PHEICs are intricate and complex. The review revealed the consequences for health and care service delivery, with increased unplanned absenteeism, service disruption and occupation turnover that subvert the capacity to answer to the PHEICs, specifically challenging the resilience of health systems.

Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes. RESULTS: The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.

ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION: ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography (CTG) to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. The aim of the present study was to quantify the efficacy of STAN vs CTG and assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed systematic literature searches to identify randomized controlled trials and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses, calculating pooled risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (OR). We also performed post hoc trial sequential analyses for selected outcomes to assess the risk of false-positive results and the need for additional studies. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials including 28 729 women were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences between the groups in operative deliveries for fetal distress (10.9 vs 11.1%; RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.11). STAN was associated with a significantly lower rate of metabolic acidosis (0.45% vs 0.68%; Peto OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.48-0.90). Accordingly, 441 women need to be monitored with STAN instead of CTG alone to prevent one case of metabolic acidosis. Women allocated to STAN had a reduced risk of fetal blood sampling compared with women allocated to conventional CTG monitoring (12.5% vs 19.6%; RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.49-0.80). The quality of the evidence was high to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute effects of STAN were minor and the clinical significance of the observed reduction in metabolic acidosis is questioned. There is insufficient evidence to state that STAN as an adjunct to CTG leads to important clinical benefits compared with CTG alone.

The effect of complement C3 or C5 inhibition on geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

With the introduction of therapies to treat geographic atrophy (GA), GA management in clinical practice is now possible. A living systematic review can provide access to timely and robust evidence synthesis. This review found that complement factor 3 and 5 (C3 and C5) inhibition compared to sham likely reduces change in square root GA area at 12 months and untransformed GA area at 24 months. There is likely little to no difference in the rate of systemic treatment-emergent adverse events compared to sham. C3 and C5 inhibition, however, likely does not improve best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 months, and the evidence is uncertain regarding change in BCVA at 24 months. Higher rates of ocular treatment emergent adverse effects with complement inhibition occur at 12 months and likely at 24 months. Complement inhibition likely results in new onset neovascular age-related macular degeneration at 12 months. This living meta-analysis will continuously incorporate new evidence.

What could health technology assessment learn from living clinical practice guidelines?

A "living" approach to clinical practice guidelines is when the identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence is maintained and repeated at an agreed frequency, with a clear process for when and how new evidence is to be incorporated. The value of a living approach to guidelines was emphasised during the COVID-19 pandemic when health professionals and policymakers needed to make decisions regarding patient care in the context of a nascent but rapidly evolving evidence base. In this perspective, we draw on our recent experience developing Australian and international living guidelines and reflect on the feasibility of applying living guideline methods and processes to a lifecycle approach to health technology assessment (HTA). We believe the opportunities and challenges of adopting a living approach in HTA fall into five key themes: identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence; optimising the frequency of updates; embedding ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement; linking the emergence of new evidence to reimbursement; and system capacity to support a living approach. We acknowledge that the suitability of specific living approaches to HTA will be heavily influenced by the type of health technology, its intended use in the health system, local reimbursement pathways, and other policy settings. But we believe that the methods and processes applied successfully to guideline development to manage evidentiary uncertainty could be applied in the context of HTA and reimbursement decision-making to help manage similar sources of uncertainty.

Protocol for a living evidence synthesis on variants of concern and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: It is evident that COVID-19 will remain a public health concern in the coming years, largely driven by variants of concern (VOC). It is critical to continuously monitor vaccine effectiveness as new variants emerge and new vaccines and/or boosters are developed. Systematic surveillance of the scientific evidence base is necessary to inform public health action and identify key uncertainties. Evidence syntheses may also be used to populate models to fill in research gaps and help to prepare for future public health crises. This protocol outlines the rationale and methods for a living evidence synthesis of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with, and transmission of, VOC of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Living evidence syntheses of vaccine effectiveness will be carried out over one year for (1) a range of potential outcomes in the index individual associated with VOC (pathogenesis); and (2) transmission of VOC. The literature search will be conducted up to May 2023. Observational and database-linkage primary studies will be included, as well as RCTs. Information sources include electronic databases (MEDLINE; Embase; Cochrane, L*OVE; the CNKI and Wangfang platforms), pre-print servers (medRxiv, BiorXiv), and online repositories of grey literature. Title and abstract and full-text screening will be performed by two reviewers using a liberal accelerated method. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed by one reviewer with verification of the assessment by a second reviewer. Results from included studies will be pooled via random effects meta-analysis when appropriate, or otherwise summarized narratively. DISCUSSION: Evidence generated from our living evidence synthesis will be used to inform policy making, modelling, and prioritization of future research on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.

A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic reviews and evidence syntheses.

Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a 'living' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the review's research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs. METHODS: Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. RESULTS: A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Ensemble of deep learning language models to support the creation of living systematic reviews for the COVID-19 literature.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented amount of scientific publications, growing at a pace never seen before. Multiple living systematic reviews have been developed to assist professionals with up-to-date and trustworthy health information, but it is increasingly challenging for systematic reviewers to keep up with the evidence in electronic databases. We aimed to investigate deep learning-based machine learning algorithms to classify COVID-19-related publications to help scale up the epidemiological curation process. METHODS: In this retrospective study, five different pre-trained deep learning-based language models were fine-tuned on a dataset of 6365 publications manually classified into two classes, three subclasses, and 22 sub-subclasses relevant for epidemiological triage purposes. In a k-fold cross-validation setting, each standalone model was assessed on a classification task and compared against an ensemble, which takes the standalone model predictions as input and uses different strategies to infer the optimal article class. A ranking task was also considered, in which the model outputs a ranked list of sub-subclasses associated with the article. RESULTS: The ensemble model significantly outperformed the standalone classifiers, achieving a F1-score of 89.2 at the class level of the classification task. The difference between the standalone and ensemble models increases at the sub-subclass level, where the ensemble reaches a micro F1-score of 70% against 67% for the best-performing standalone model. For the ranking task, the ensemble obtained the highest recall@3, with a performance of 89%. Using an unanimity voting rule, the ensemble can provide predictions with higher confidence on a subset of the data, achieving detection of original papers with a F1-score up to 97% on a subset of 80% of the collection instead of 93% on the whole dataset. CONCLUSION: This study shows the potential of using deep learning language models to perform triage of COVID-19 references efficiently and support epidemiological curation and review. The ensemble consistently and significantly outperforms any standalone model. Fine-tuning the voting strategy thresholds is an interesting alternative to annotate a subset with higher predictive confidence.

The move towards living systematic reviews and living guidelines in healthcare: consideration of the possibilities and challenges for living qualitative evidence syntheses.

Over the past decade qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), a range of methods for synthesising qualitative research evidence, has become a valued form of evidence for guideline producers who wish to understand more about patient preference and acceptability of treatments. The surge in interest in living systematic reviews and the appearance of living guidelines as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic potentially weaken the value and usability of QES.There are currently no published methods for producing living QES, and if QES are to remain of worth to guideline producers then methods for the rapid, frequent updating of them will need to be developed. We discuss some of the similarities and differences between qualitative and quantitative evidence syntheses and highlight areas where development is needed if reviewers are to progress with living approaches to QES.

Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges. METHODS: Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors. RESULTS: We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. CONCLUSION: We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.

Clinical testing of the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarette substitution for smoking: a living systematic review.

Some persons who smoke have substituted e-cigarettes for tobacco cigarettes, either completely or partially. What effect does this have on cardiovascular functioning? We conducted a living systematic review on human clinical studies measuring the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarette substitution for smoking. The Scopus, PubMed, and CENTRAL Cochrane Library databases were searched on January 31 and April 29, 2021. Three secondary searches and a grey literature search were conducted. Included study designs were randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental clinical trials, and cohort studies. Risk of bias and study quality were evaluated with the JBI Critical Appraisal tools and the Oxford Catalogue of Bias. The systematic review covered 25 studies comprising 1810 participants who smoked. Twenty studies were rated at high risk of bias, and five as some concerns. A tabular synthesis by direction of effect was conducted due to heterogeneity in the data. Nearly two-thirds of the test analyses indicated that e-cigarette use had no significance difference compared with tobacco cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and in other cardiovascular tests. In two studies, participants with hypertension experienced a clinically relevant reduction in systolic blood pressure after 1 year of e-cigarette use. E-cigarette substitution incurs no additional cardiovascular risks, and some possible benefits may be obtained, but the evidence is of low to very low certainty. An update search on May 30, 2022 retrieved five studies that did not alter our conclusion.Registration PROSPERO #CRD42021239094.

An observatory on changes in dreaming during a pandemic: a living systematic review (part 1).

A 'new' way of dreaming has emerged during the pandemic, enhancing the interest of psychological literature. Indeed, during the years of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many studies have investigated dream-related phenomena and dreaming functions. Considering the constant and rapid emergence of new results on this topic, the main aim of this study was to create an 'observatory' on the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on dreaming, by means of a living systematic review. The baseline results are presented, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, to identify and discuss existing studies about dreams and dreaming during the COVID-19 pandemic published until February 2022. Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and PubMed were used for the search strategy, yielding 71 eligible papers included in the review. Our results show: (a) a more intense oneiric activity during lockdown; (b) changes in dreaming components (especially dream-recall and nightmare frequency); (c) a particular dreaming scenario ('pandemic dreams'); (d) an alteration of the dreaming-waking-life continuum and a specific function of dreaming as emotional regulator. Findings suggest that monitoring changes in dreaming provides important information about psychological health and could also contribute to the debate on the difficulties of dreaming, as well as sleeping, in particular during and after a period of 'collective trauma'.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19.

Purpose: The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed. Results: Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on "living" process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode. Conclusion: Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the "living" process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.