In Search of a Gold Standard Tool for Assessing Knowledge of Stroke: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of stroke is essential to empower people to reduce their risk of these events. However, valid tools are required for accurate and reliable measurement of stroke knowledge. We aimed to systematically review contemporary stroke knowledge assessment tools and appraise their content validity, feasibility, and measurement properties. METHODS: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023403566). Electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched to identify published articles (1 January 2015-1 March 2023), in which stroke knowledge was assessed using a validated tool. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts prior to undertaking full-text review. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methods guided the appraisal of content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility), feasibility, and measurement properties. RESULTS: After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 718 articles were screened; 323 reviewed in full; with 42 included (N = 23 unique stroke knowledge tools). For content validity, all tools were relevant, two were comprehensive, and seven were comprehensible. Validation metrics were reported for internal consistency (n = 20 tools), construct validity (n = 17 tools), cross-cultural validity (n = 15 tools), responsiveness (n = 9 tools), reliability (n = 7 tools), structural validity (n = 3 tools), and measurement error (n = 1 tool). The Stroke Knowledge Test met all content validity criteria, with validation data for six measurement properties (n = 3 rated "Sufficient"). CONCLUSION: Assessment of stroke knowledge is not standardised and many tools lacked validated content or measurement properties. The Stroke Knowledge Test was the most comprehensive but requires updating and further validation for endorsement as a gold standard.

A 10-year update to the principles for clinical trial data sharing by pharmaceutical companies: perspectives based on a decade of literature and policies.

Data sharing is essential for promoting scientific discoveries and informed decision-making in clinical practice. In 2013, PhRMA/EFPIA recognised the importance of data sharing and supported initiatives to enhance clinical trial data transparency and promote scientific advancements. However, despite these commitments, recent investigations indicate significant scope for improvements in data sharing by the pharmaceutical industry. Drawing on a decade of literature and policy developments, this article presents perspectives from a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and consumers. The focus is on policy and process updates to the PhRMA/EFPIA 2013 data sharing commitments, aiming to enhance the sharing and accessibility of participant-level data, clinical study reports, protocols, statistical analysis plans, lay summaries, and result publications from pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. The proposed updates provide clear recommendations regarding which data should be shared, when it should be shared, and under what conditions. The suggested improvements aim to develop a data sharing ecosystem that supports science and patient-centred care. Good data sharing principles require resources, time, and commitment. Notwithstanding these challenges, enhancing data sharing is necessary for efficient resource utilization, increased scientific collaboration, and better decision-making for patients and healthcare professionals.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

A Brief Shared Decision-Making Intervention for Acute Respiratory Infections on Antibiotic Dispensing Rates in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics. RESULTS: The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P <.001) in the number of correct responses to the 22 knowledge questions. There were no between-group differences for other secondary outcomes. The intervention was well received, perceived as useful, and reported as used by about two-thirds of intervention GPs. CONCLUSIONS: A brief shared decision-making intervention provided to GPs did not reduce antibiotic dispensing more than usual care, although GPs' knowledge of relevant benefit-harm evidence increased significantly.

Information about the natural history of acute infections commonly seen in primary care: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Many of the acute infections that are seen in primary care and sometimes managed with antibiotics are self-resolving and antibiotics may be unnecessary. Information about the natural history of these infections underpins antibiotic stewardship strategies such as delayed prescribing and shared decision making, yet whether it's reported in guidelines is unknown. We examined, in clinical guidelines, the reporting of natural history information and relevant antibiotic stewardship strategies for acute infections commonly seen in primary care. METHODS: A systematic review of national and international guidelines (2010 onwards), available electronically, for managing acute infections (respiratory, urinary, or skin and soft tissue). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP, and GIN databases and websites of 22 guideline-publishing organisations. RESULTS: We identified 82 guidelines, covering 114 eligible infections. Natural history information was reported in 49 (59.8%) of the guidelines and 66 (57.9%) of the reported conditions, most commonly for respiratory tract infections. Quantitative information about the expected infection duration was provided for 63.5% (n = 42) of the infections. Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy was recommended for 34.2% (n = 39) of them and shared decision making for 21% (n = 24). CONCLUSIONS: Just over half of the guidelines for acute infections that are commonly managed in primary care and sometimes with antibiotics contained natural history information. As many of these infections spontaneously improve, this is a missed opportunity to disseminate this information to clinicians, promote antibiotic stewardship, and facilitate conversations with patients and informed decision making. Systematic review registration CRD42021247048.

Occupational therapy for cognitive impairment in stroke patients.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a frequent consequence of stroke and can impact on a person's ability to perform everyday activities. Occupational therapists use a range of interventions when working with people who have cognitive impairment poststroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of occupational therapy on activities of daily living (ADL), both basic and instrumental, global cognitive function, and specific cognitive abilities in people who have cognitive impairment following a stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases (all last searched September 2020), trial registries, and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated an intervention for adults with clinically defined stroke and confirmed cognitive impairment. The intervention needed either to be provided by an occupational therapist or considered within the scope of occupational therapy practice as defined in the review. We excluded studies focusing on apraxia or perceptual impairments or virtual reality interventions as these are covered by other Cochrane Reviews. The primary outcome was basic activities of daily living (BADL) such as dressing, feeding, and bathing. Secondary outcomes were instrumental ADL (IADL) (e.g. shopping and meal preparation), community integration and participation, global cognitive function and specific cognitive abilities (including attention, memory, executive function, or a combination of these), and subdomains of these abilities. We included both observed and self-reported outcome measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence. A third review author moderated disagreements if consensus was not reached. We contacted trial authors for additional information and data, where available. We assessed the certainty of key outcomes using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials from 11 countries involving 1142 (analysed) participants (two weeks to eight years since stroke onset). This update includes 23 new trials in addition to the one study included in the previous version. Most were parallel randomised controlled trials except for one cross-over trial and one with a two-by-two factorial design. Most studies had sample sizes under 50 participants. Twenty studies involved a remediation approach to cognitive rehabilitation, particularly using computer-based interventions. The other four involved a compensatory and adaptive approach. The length of interventions ranged from 10 days to 18 weeks, with a mean total length of 19 hours. Control groups mostly received usual rehabilitation or occupational therapy care, with a few receiving an attention control that was comparable to usual care; two had no intervention (i.e. a waiting list). Apart from high risk of performance bias for all but one of the studies, the risk of bias for other aspects was mostly low or unclear.  For the primary outcome of BADL, meta-analysis found a small effect on completion of the intervention with a mean difference (MD) of 2.26 on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 4.22; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 336 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therefore, on average, BADL improved by 2.26 points on the FIM that ranges from 18 (total assist) to 126 (complete independence). On follow-up, there was insufficient evidence of an effect at three months (MD 10.00, 95% CI -0.54 to 20.55; P = 0.06, I2 = 53%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence), but evidence of an effect at six months (MD 11.38, 95% CI 1.62 to 21.14, I2 = 12%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence). These differences are below 22 points which is the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the FIM for people with stroke. For IADL, the evidence is very uncertain about an effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.47; P = 0.0005, I2 = 98%; 2 studies, 88 participants). For community integration, we found insufficient evidence of an effect (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.54; P = 0.68, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 78 participants). There was an improvement of clinical importance in global cognitive functional performance after the intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54; P = 0.0004, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 432 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.63 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (95% CI 0.75 to 2.52), which exceeds the anchor-based MCID of the MoCA for stroke rehabilitation patients of 1.22. We found some effect for attention overall (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.15; P = 0.0002, I2 = 20%; 13 studies, 620 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to a difference of 17.31 seconds (95% CI 8.38 to 26.24), and for executive functional performance overall (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66; P < 0.00001, I2 = 74%; 11 studies, 550 participants; very low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.41 points on the Frontal Assessment Battery (range: 0-18). Of the cognitive subdomains, we found evidence of effect of possible clinical importance, immediately after intervention, for sustained visual attention (moderate certainty) equating to 15.63 seconds, for working memory (low certainty) equating to 59.9 seconds, and thinking flexibly (low certainty), compared to control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment poststroke remains unclear. Occupational therapy may result in little to no clinical difference in BADL immediately after intervention and at three and six months' follow-up. Occupational therapy may slightly improve global cognitive performance of a clinically important difference immediately after intervention, likely improves sustained visual attention slightly, and may slightly increase working memory and flexible thinking after intervention. There is evidence of low or very low certainty or insufficient evidence for effect on other cognitive domains, IADL, and community integration and participation.  Given the low certainty of much of the evidence in our review, more research is needed to support or refute the effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment after stroke. Future trials need improved methodology to address issues including risk of bias and to better report the outcome measures and interventions used.

Using qualitative research to develop an elaboration of the TIDieR checklist for interventions to enhance vaccination communication: short report.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased interest in communication with the public regarding vaccination. Our recent Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis points to several factors that could influence the implementation and success of healthcare worker communication with older adults about vaccination. However, it is often difficult to assess whether factors identified as potentially important in qualitative studies have been considered in randomized trials because of poor trial reporting. We therefore decided to use our qualitative evidence synthesis findings to encourage better reporting of vaccination communication interventions in trials by developing an elaboration of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for intervention reporting. METHODS: We examined the findings from our Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis on healthcare workers' perceptions of and experiences with communicating about vaccination with adults over the age of 50 years. We identified factors that could influence the implementation and uptake, and thereby the effectiveness, of vaccination communication interventions. We then drafted a list of the information elements we would need from trial reports to assess whether these factors had been considered in the development of the interventions evaluated in these trials. Finally, we compared our list of information elements to the TIDieR checklist items. We were able to align all of our information elements with the TIDieR items. However, for several of the TIDieR items, we developed a more detailed description to ensure that relevant information would be captured sufficiently in trial reports. RESULTS: We developed elaborations for the following TIDieR items: "Why" (item 2), "What-materials" (item 3), "Who provided" (item 5), "How" (item 6), "Where" (item 7) and "Tailoring" (item 9). CONCLUSIONS: Both qualitative research and trials of intervention effectiveness are critical to furthering our understanding of what works, where, for whom and through which mechanisms. However, a key ingredient for developing this understanding is adequate reporting of intervention design, content and implementation in randomized trials. We hope that this elaboration of the TIDier checklist will improve reporting of interventions in trials focused on vaccine communication with older adults, and thereby enhance the usability of this research for developing future communication strategies.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]. / A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

Advancing Stroke Recovery Through Improved Articulation of Nonpharmacological Intervention Dose.

Dose articulation is a universal issue of intervention development and testing. In stroke recovery, dose of a nonpharmaceutical intervention appears to influence outcome but is often poorly reported. The challenges of articulating dose in nonpharmacological stroke recovery research include: (1) the absence of specific internationally agreed dose reporting guidelines; (2) inadequate conceptualization of dose, which is multidimensional; and (3) unclear and inconsistent terminology that incorporates the multiple dose dimensions. To address these challenges, we need a well-conceptualized and consistent approach to dose articulation that can be applied across stroke recovery domains to stimulate critical thinking about dose during intervention development, as well as promote reporting of planned intervention dose versus actually delivered dose. We followed the Design Research Paradigm to develop a framework that guides how to articulate dose, conceptualizes the multidimensional nature and systemic linkages between dose dimensions, and provides reference terminology for the field. Our framework recognizes that dose is multidimensional and comprised of a duration of days that contain individual sessions and episodes that can be active (time on task) or inactive (time off task), and each individual episode can be made up of information about length, intensity, and difficulty. Clinical utility of this framework was demonstrated via hypothetical application to preclinical and clinical domains of stroke recovery. The suitability of the framework to address dose articulation challenges was confirmed with an international expert advisory group. This novel framework provides a pathway for better articulation of nonpharmacological dose that will enable transparent and accurate description, implementation, monitoring, and reporting, in stroke recovery research.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Early intervention (mobilization or active exercise) for critically ill adults in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of critical illness often experience a multitude of problems that begin in the intensive care unit (ICU) or present and continue after discharge. These can include muscle weakness, cognitive impairments, psychological difficulties, reduced physical function such as in activities of daily living (ADLs), and decreased quality of life. Early interventions such as mobilizations or active exercise, or both, may diminish the impact of the sequelae of critical illness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of early intervention (mobilization or active exercise), commenced in the ICU, provided to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period, compared with delayed exercise or usual care, on improving physical function or performance, muscle strength and health-related quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We searched conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, databases of trial registries and contacted experts in the field on 31 August 2017. We did not impose restrictions on language or location of publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared early intervention (mobilization or active exercise, or both), delivered in the ICU, with delayed exercise or usual care delivered to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period in the ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles against the inclusion criteria of this review. We resolved any disagreement through discussion with a third review author as required. We presented data descriptively using mean differences or medians, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs (a total of 690 participants), in this review. Participants were adults who were mechanically ventilated in a general, medical or surgical ICU, with mean or median age in the studies ranging from 56 to 62 years. Admitting diagnoses in three of the four studies were indicative of critical illness, while participants in the fourth study had undergone cardiac surgery. Three studies included range-of-motion exercises, bed mobility activities, transfers and ambulation. The fourth study involved only upper limb exercises. Included studies were at high risk of performance bias, as they were not blinded to participants and personnel, and two of four did not blind outcome assessors. Three of four studies reported only on those participants who completed the study, with high rates of dropout. The description of intervention type, dose, intensity and frequency in the standard care control group was poor in two of four studies.Three studies (a total of 454 participants) reported at least one measure of physical function. One study (104 participants) reported low-quality evidence of beneficial effects in the intervention group on return to independent functional status at hospital discharge (59% versus 35%, risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.64); the absolute effect is that 246 more people (95% CI 38 to 567) per 1000 would attain independent functional status when provided with early mobilization. The effects on physical functioning are uncertain for a range measures: Barthel Index scores (early mobilization: median 75 control: versus 55, low quality evidence), number of ADLs achieved at ICU (median of 3 versus 0, low quality evidence) or at hospital discharge (median of 6 versus 4, low quality evidence). The effects of early mobilization on physical function measured at ICU discharge are uncertain, as measured by the Acute Care Index of Function (ACIF) (early mobilization mean: 61.1 versus control: 55, mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.05, low quality evidence) and the Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) score (5.6 versus 5.4, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.38, low quality evidence). There is low quality evidence that early mobilization may have little or no effect on physical function measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery score at ICU discharge from one study of 184 participants (mean 1.6 in the intervention group versus 1.9 in usual care, MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.50), or at hospital discharge (MD 0, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.90). The fourth study, which examined postoperative cardiac surgery patients did not measure physical function as an outcome.Adverse effects were reported across the four studies but we could not combine the data. Our certainty in the risk of adverse events with either mobilization strategy is low due to the low rate of events. One study reported that in the intervention group one out of 49 participants (2%) experienced oxygen desaturation less than 80% and one of 49 (2%) had accidental dislodgement of the radial catheter. This study also found cessation of therapy due to participant instability occurred in 19 of 498 (4%) of the intervention sessions. In another study five of 101 (5%) participants in the intervention group and five of 109 (4.6%) participants in the control group had postoperative pulmonary complications deemed to be unrelated to intervention. A third study found one of 150 participants in the intervention group had an episode of asymptomatic bradycardia, but completed the exercise session. The fourth study reported no adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence on the effect of early mobilization of critically ill people in the ICU on physical function or performance, adverse events, muscle strength and health-related quality of life at this time. The four studies awaiting classification, and the three ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once these results are available. We assessed that there is currently low-quality evidence for the effect of early mobilization of critically ill adults in the ICU due to small sample sizes, lack of blinding of participants and personnel, variation in the interventions and outcomes used to measure their effect and inadequate descriptions of the interventions delivered as usual care in the studies included in this Cochrane Review.

Parents' Expectations and Experiences of Antibiotics for Acute Respiratory Infections in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Primary care visits for children with acute respiratory infections frequently result in antibiotic prescriptions, although antibiotics have limited benefits for common acute respiratory infections and can cause harms, including antibiotic resistance. Parental demands are often blamed for antibiotic prescription. We aimed to explore parents' beliefs about antibiotic necessity, quantify their expectations of antibiotic benefit, and report experiences of other management options and exposure to and preferences for shared decision making. METHODS: We conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews in an Australia-wide community sample of primary caregivers, hereafter referred to as parents, of children aged 1 to 12 years, using random digit dialing of household landline telephones. RESULTS: Of the 14,505 telephone numbers called, 10,340 were eligible numbers; 589 potentially eligible parents were reached, of whom 401 were interviewed. Most believed antibiotics provide benefits for common acute respiratory infections, especially for acute otitis media (92%), although not using them, particularly for acute cough and sore throat, was sometimes acceptable. Parents grossly overestimated the mean benefit of antibiotics on illness symptom duration by 5 to 10 times, and believed they reduce the likelihood of complications. The majority, 78%, recognized antibiotics may cause harm. Recalling the most recent relevant doctor visit, 44% of parents reported at least some discussion about why antibiotics might be used; shared decision making about antibiotic use was inconsistent, while 75% wanted more involvement in future decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Some parents have misperceptions about antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections, highlighting the need for improved communication during visits, including shared decision making to address overoptimistic expectations of antibiotics. Such communication should be one of several strategies that is used to reduce antibiotic use.

A qualitative study exploring high school students' understanding of, and attitudes towards, health information and claims.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to health claims, particularly in the media and social media, is pervasive, and the information conveyed is often inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. Some young people of high school ages are already making decisions about using readily available health interventions (such as sports drinks and beauty products).Although previous research has assessed adults' understanding of health claims, no research has examined this issue in young adults who are attending high school. OBJECTIVE: To explore high school students' understanding of, and attitudes towards, concepts relevant to assessing health information and claims. DESIGN: A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 27 Australian high school students. Responses were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. Three themes emerged as follows: (i) Variability in sources of health information and claims, and general understanding of their creation and accuracy of content, (ii) The use of substitute indicators to assess health information and claims and make judgements about their trustworthiness, (iii) Uncertainty about, and literal interpretation of, the language of health claims. Despite general scepticism of health claims and admitted uncertainty of research terminology, many students were generally convinced. Students had poor understanding about how health claims are generated and tended to rely on substitute indicators, such as endorsements, when evaluating the believability of claims. CONCLUSION: School students' lack of awareness of basic health research processes and methods of assessing the accuracy of health information and claims makes them vulnerable to distorted and misleading health information. This restricts their ability to make informed health decisions - a skill that increases in importance as they become adults.

Reporting of Telehealth-Delivered Dietary Intervention Trials in Chronic Disease: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth-delivered dietary interventions are effective for chronic disease management and are an emerging area of clinical practice. However, to apply interventions from the research setting in clinical practice, health professionals need details of each intervention component. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting in published dietary chronic disease management trials that used telehealth delivery methods. METHODS: Eligible randomized controlled trial publications were identified through a systematic review. The completeness of reporting of experimental and comparison interventions was assessed by two independent assessors using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist that consists of 12 items including intervention rationale, materials used, procedures, providers, delivery mode, location, when and how much intervention delivered, intervention tailoring, intervention modifications, and fidelity. Where reporting was incomplete, further information was sought from additional published material and through email correspondence with trial authors. RESULTS: Within the 37 eligible trials, there were 49 experimental interventions and 37 comparison interventions. One trial reported every TIDieR item for their experimental intervention. No publications reported every item for the comparison intervention. For the experimental interventions, the most commonly reported items were location (96%), mode of delivery (98%), and rationale for the essential intervention elements (96%). Least reported items for experimental interventions were modifications (2%) and intervention material descriptions (39%) and where to access them (20%). Of the 37 authors, 14 responded with further information, and 8 could not be contacted. CONCLUSIONS: Many details of the experimental and comparison interventions in telehealth-delivered dietary chronic disease management trials are incompletely reported. This prevents accurate interpretation of trial results and implementation of effective interventions in clinical practice.

Urinary alkalisation for symptomatic uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection in women, characterised by dysuria and urinary frequency. Urinary alkalisers are widely used in some countries for the symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated UTI, and they are recommended in some national formularies. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support their use for UTI and some healthcare guidelines advise against their use. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of the use of urinary alkalisers for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in adult women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 19 January 2016 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs on the use of (any) urinary alkalisers (either exclusively or non-exclusively) for the symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated UTI amongst women aged 16 and over, were included. Studies were eligible if they included patients whose diagnosis of UTI was decided by symptoms alone, or positive urine dipstick test or urine culture; and patients with recurrent UTI, provided patients had no symptoms of UTI in the two weeks prior to the onset of symptoms that lead them to seek medical advice. Studies were ineligible if they studied patients with complicated UTIs; immune-compromising conditions; acute pyelonephritis; or chronic conditions such as interstitial cystitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed and screened papers, and this was repeated by two separate authors (independently). An additional investigator acted as arbitrator, where necessary. There were no papers which fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review, and therefore no data extraction was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 172 potential studies for inclusion. However, following assessment none fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Until relevant evidence is generated from randomised trials, the safety and efficacy of urinary alkalisers for the symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated UTI remains unknown.

A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials.

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

Exercise versus no exercise for the occurrence, severity and duration of acute respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) last for less than 30 days and are the most common acute diseases affecting people worldwide. Exercise has been shown to improve health generally and may be effective in reducing the occurrence, severity and duration of acute respiratory infections. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise for altering the occurrence, severity or duration of acute respiratory infections. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1948 to July week 1, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to July 2014), CINAHL (1981 to July 2014), LILACS (1982 to July 2014), SPORTDiscus (1985 to July 2014), PEDro (searched on 11 July 2014), OTseeker (searched on 11 July 2014), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched on 11 July 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of exercise for ARIs in the general population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using a standard form. We contacted trial authors to request missing data. One review author entered data and a second review author checked this. There were sufficient differences in the populations trialled and in the nature of the interventions to use the random-effects model (which makes fewer assumptions than the fixed-effect model) in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials involving 904 adults, published between 1990 and 2014. Eight studies were conducted in the USA, and one each in Canada, Spain and Turkey. Sample sizes ranged from 20 to 154 participants aged between 18 and 85 years old. The proportion of female participants varied between 52% and 100%. The duration of follow-up in the studies varied from seven days to 12 months. The exercise type most prescribed for the intervention was aerobic (walking in 70% of the studies, or bicycle riding or treadmill) at least five times a week. Duration was 30 to 45 minutes at moderate intensity. Participants were supervised in 90% of the studies.For four of the primary outcomes the results did not differ significantly and all were low-quality evidence (number of ARI episodes per person per year, rate ratio 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.42); proportion of participants who experienced at least one ARI over the study period, risk ratio 0.76 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.01); severity of ARI symptoms, mean difference (MD) -110 (95% CI -324 to 104); and number of symptom days in the follow-up period, MD -2.1 days (95% CI -4.4 to 0.3)). However, one primary outcome, the number of symptom days per episode of illness, was reduced in those participants who exercised (MD -1.1 day, 95% CI -1.7 to -0.5, moderate-quality evidence).We found no significant differences for the secondary outcomes (laboratory parameters (blood lymphocytes, salivary secretory immunoglobulin and neutrophils); quality of life outcomes; cost-effectiveness and exercise-related injuries).There was good adherence to the intervention with no difference between the exercise and non-exercise groups.We rated the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes as low for most outcomes using the GRADE criteria: allocation concealment was not reported and there was a lack of blinding; in addition, there was imprecision (the CI is very wide because of a small number of participants) and inconsistency, which may be due to differences in study design. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot determine whether exercise is effective at altering the occurrence, severity or duration of acute respiratory infections. One analysis of four trials suggests that the number of days of illness per episode of infection might be reduced by exercise. The small size of the studies, risk of bias and heterogeneous populations trialled all contribute to the uncertainty. Larger studies, with less risk of bias from patient selection, blinding of outcomes assessors, reporting of all outcomes measured and with registration of study protocols, are required to settle the question.