Higher Risk of Many Physical Health Conditions in Sexual Minority Men: Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Gay- and Bisexual-Identified Compared with Heterosexual-Identified Men.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analysis on the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority men (SMM, i.e., gay- and bisexual-identified men) compared with heterosexual-identified men. Methods: A systematic literature search in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science was conducted on epidemiological studies on physical health conditions, classified in the Global Burden of Disease project and published between 2000 and 2021. Meta-analyses comparing odds ratios were calculated. Results: In total, 23,649 abstracts were screened, and 32 studies were included in the systematic review. Main findings were that (1) Largest differences in prevalence by sexual identity were found for chronic respiratory diseases, particularly asthma: overall, SMM were significantly almost 50% more likely to suffer from asthma than heterosexual men. (2) Evidence of higher prevalence was also found for chronic kidney diseases and headache disorders in gay men and for hepatitis B/C in both gay and bisexual men. (3) We found an overall trend that bisexual men were more affected by some of the physical health conditions compared with gay men (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, asthma). However, regarding cancer, headache disorders, and hepatitis, gay men were more affected. Conclusion: We found evidence of physical health disparities by sexual identity, suggesting more health issues in SMM. Since some of these findings rely on few comparisons or small samples of SMM only, this review is intended to be a vehement plea for routinely including sexual identity assessment in health research and clinical practice.

GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework. RESULTS: We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods. CONCLUSION: This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

Increasing the efficiency of study selection for systematic reviews using prioritization tools and a single-screening approach.

BACKGROUND: Systematic literature screening is a key component in systematic reviews. However, this approach is resource intensive as generally two persons independently of each other (double screening) screen a vast number of search results. To develop approaches for increasing efficiency, we tested the use of text mining to prioritize search results as well as the involvement of only one person (single screening) in the study selection process. METHOD: Our study is based on health technology assessments (HTAs) of drug and non-drug interventions. Using a sample size calculation, we consecutively included 11 searches resulting in 33 study selection processes. Of the three screeners for each search, two used screening tools with prioritization (Rayyan, EPPI Reviewer) and one a tool without prioritization. For each prioritization tool, we investigated the proportion of citations classified as relevant at three cut-offs or STOP criteria (after screening 25%, 50% and 75% of the citation set). For each STOP criterion, we measured sensitivity (number of correctly identified relevant studies divided by the total number of relevant studies in the study pool). In addition, we determined the number of relevant studies identified per single screening round and investigated whether missed studies were relevant to the HTA conclusion. RESULTS: Overall, EPPI Reviewer performed better than Rayyan and identified the vast majority (88%, Rayyan 66%) of relevant citations after screening half of the citation set. As long as additional information sources were screened, it was sufficient to apply a single-screening approach to identify all studies relevant to the HTA conclusion. Although many relevant publications (n = 63) and studies (n = 29) were incorrectly excluded, ultimately only 5 studies could not be identified at all in 2 of the 11 searches (1x 1 study, 1x 4 studies). However, their omission did not change the overall conclusion in any HTA. CONCLUSIONS: EPPI Reviewer helped to identify relevant citations earlier in the screening process than Rayyan. Single screening would have been sufficient to identify all studies relevant to the HTA conclusion. However, this requires screening of further information sources. It also needs to be considered that the credibility of an HTA may be questioned if studies are missing, even if they are not relevant to the HTA conclusion.

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis.

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Assessment of prostate-specific antigen screening: an evidence-based report by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care.

CONTEXT: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing increases prostate cancer diagnoses and reduces long-term disease-specific mortality, but also results in overdiagnoses and treatment-related harms. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the benefits and harms of population-based PSA screening and the potential net benefit to inform health policy decision-makers in Germany. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a protocol-guided comprehensive literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. All steps were performed by one or two investigators; any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. To allow subgroup analyses for identifying the optimal screening parameters, the eight national trials conducted under the umbrella of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) were included as individual trials. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included a total 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 416 000 study participants. For all-cause mortality, we found neither benefit nor harm. PSA screening was associated with a reduced risk of both prostate cancer mortality and the development of metastases. For the outcomes of health-related quality of life, adverse effects and the consequences of false-negative screening results there was no difference; however, this was due to the lack of eligible RCT data. Finally, PSA screening was associated with large numbers of overdiagnoses with adverse downstream consequences of unnecessary treatment (e.g. incontinence, erectile dysfunction) and large numbers of false-positive PSA tests leading to biopsies associated with a small but not negligible risk of complications. Limitations of this assessment include the clinical heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the underlying studies. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of PSA-based prostate cancer screening do not outweigh its harms. We failed to identify eligible screening studies of newer biomarkers, PSA derivatives or modern imaging modalities, which may alter the balance of benefit to harm. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the present study, we reviewed the evidence on the PSA blood test to screen men without symptoms for prostate cancer. We found that the small benefits experienced by some men do not outweigh the harms to many more men.

["Transferability": Is GRADE the solution?] / "Übertragbarkeit? Ist GRADE die Lösung?

Biological and social factors, such as age, comorbidities and the care system, may - as well-established effect-modifiers - limit the transferability of study results to populations with dissimilar characteristics. In order to enable transparent and evidence-based decisions in systematic reviews and guidelines targeting subpopulations that are little or not represented in the study landscape, the GRADE approach is a valid tool to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE provides a structured methodology that covers all steps, from developing a precise question, prioritizing patient-relevant outcomes and assessing the available evidence to derive recommendations for practice, among other things. Evaluating confidence in a body of evidence comprises judgments on risk of bias, study heterogeneity, directness, including comparability between study population and target population, precision of effect estimates and publication bias. Because GRADE demands transparent decisions about the applicability of study results from the study population to the target population, gaps in the evidence landscape can be uncovered. Overall, the approach cannot solve the problem of the transferability of study results. It does, however, support the explicit handling of applicability and can give impetus to targeted research gaps.

Yoga for treating urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence in women is associated with poor quality of life and difficulties in social, psychological and sexual functioning. The condition may affect up to 15% of middle-aged or older women in the general population. Conservative treatments such as lifestyle interventions, bladder training and pelvic floor muscle training (used either alone or in combination with other interventions) are the initial approaches to the management of urinary incontinence. Many women are interested in additional treatments such as yoga, a system of philosophy, lifestyle and physical practice that originated in ancient India. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of yoga for treating urinary incontinence in women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence and Cochrane Complementary Medicine Specialised Registers. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies. We handsearched Proceedings of the International Congress on Complementary Medicine Research and the European Congress for Integrative Medicine. We searched the NHS Economic Evaluation Database for economic studies, and supplemented this search with searches for economics studies in MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 onwards. Database searches are up-to-date as of 21 June 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in women diagnosed with urinary incontinence in which one group was allocated to treatment with yoga. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each reported outcome. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. We planned to combine clinically comparable studies in Review Manager 5 using random-effects meta-analysis and to carry out sensitivity and subgroup analyses. We planned to create a table listing economic studies on yoga for incontinence but not carry out any analyses on these studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (involving a total of 49 women). Each study compared yoga to a different comparator, therefore we were unable to combine the data in a meta-analysis. A third study that has been completed but not yet fully reported is awaiting assessment.One included study was a six-week study comparing yoga to a waiting list in 19 women with either urgency urinary incontinence or stress urinary incontinence. We judged the certainty of the evidence for all reported outcomes as very low due to performance bias, detection bias, and imprecision. The number of women reporting cure was not reported. We are uncertain whether yoga results in satisfaction with cure or improvement of incontinence (risk ratio (RR) 6.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 27.88; an increase of 592 from 111 per 1000, 95% CI 160 to 1000). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between yoga and waiting list in condition-specific quality of life as measured on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (mean difference (MD) 1.74, 95% CI -33.02 to 36.50); the number of micturitions (MD -0.77, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.59); the number of incontinence episodes (MD -1.57, 95% CI -2.83 to -0.31); or the bothersomeness of incontinence as measured on the Urogenital Distress Inventory 6 (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.34). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of women who experienced at least one adverse event (risk difference 0%, 95% CI -38% to 38%; no difference from 222 per 1000, 95% CI 380 fewer to 380 more).The second included study was an eight-week study in 30 women with urgency urinary incontinence that compared mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to an active control intervention of yoga classes. The study was unblinded, and there was high attrition from both study arms for all outcome assessments. We judged the certainty of the evidence for all reported outcomes as very low due to performance bias, attrition bias, imprecision and indirectness. The number of women reporting cure was not reported. We are uncertain whether women in the yoga group were less likely to report improvement in incontinence at eight weeks compared to women in the MBSR group (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.43; a decrease of 419 from 461 per 1000, 95% CI 5 to 660). We are uncertain about the effect of MBSR compared to yoga on reports of cure or improvement in incontinence, improvement in condition-specific quality of life measured on the Overactive Bladder Health-Related Quality of Life Scale, reduction in incontinence episodes or reduction in bothersomeness of incontinence as measured on the Overactive Bladder Symptom and Quality of Life-Short Form at eight weeks. The study did not report on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified few trials on yoga for incontinence, and the existing trials were small and at high risk of bias. In addition, we did not find any studies of economic outcomes related to yoga for urinary incontinence. Due to the lack of evidence to answer the review question, we are uncertain whether yoga is useful for women with urinary incontinence. Additional, well-conducted trials with larger sample sizes are needed.

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates. DESIGN: Methodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database. DATA SOURCES: Cancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded. RESULTS: We included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.