A Multi-institutional Analysis of Factors Influencing the Rate of Positive MRI Biopsy Among Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) is increasing, but its utility in detecting additional malignancy is unclear and delays surgical management (Jatoi and Benson in Future Oncol 9:347-353, 2013. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.12.186 , Bleicher et al. J Am Coll Surg 209:180-187, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.04.010 , Borowsky et al. J Surg Res 280:114-122, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.06.066 ). The present study sought to identify ESBC patients most likely to benefit from preoperative MRI by assessing the positive predictive values (PPVs) of ipsilateral and contralateral biopsies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included patients with cTis-T2N0-N1 breast cancer from two institutions during 2016-2021. A "positive" biopsy result was defined as additional cancer (PositiveCancer) or cancer with histology often excised (PositiveSurg). The PPV of MRI biopsies was calculated with respect to age, family history, breast density, and histology. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression determined whether combinations of age younger than 50 years, dense breasts, family history, and pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) histology led to higher biopsy yield. RESULTS: Of the included patients, 447 received preoperative MRI and 131 underwent 149 MRI-guided biopsies (96 ipsilateral, 53 contralateral [18 bilateral]). PositiveCancer for ipsilateral biopsy was 54.2%, and PositiveCancer for contralateral biopsy was 17.0%. PositiveSurg for ipsilateral biopsy was 62.5%, and PositiveSurg for contralateral biopsy was 24.5%. Among the contralateral MRI biopsies, patients younger than 50 years were less likely to have PositiveSurg (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.84; p = 0.041). The combinations of age, density, family history, and histology did not lead to a higher biopsy yield. CONCLUSION: Historically accepted factors for recommending preoperative MRI did not appear to confer a higher MRI biopsy yield. To prevent delays to surgical management, MRI should be carefully selected for individual patients most likely to benefit from additional imaging.

Microbial communities from weathered outcrops of a sulfide-rich ultramafic intrusion, and implications for mine waste management.

The Duluth Complex (DC) contains sulfide-rich magmatic intrusions that represent one of the largest known economic deposits of copper, nickel, and platinum group elements. Previous work showed that microbial communities associated with experimentally-weathered DC waste rock and tailings were dominated by uncultivated taxa and organisms not typically associated with mine waste. However, those experiments were designed for kinetic testing and do not necessarily represent the conditions expected for long-term environmental weathering. We used 16S rRNA gene methods to characterize the microbial communities present on the surfaces of naturally-weathered and historically disturbed outcrops of DC material. Rock surfaces were dominated by diverse uncultured Ktedonobacteria, Acetobacteria, and Actinobacteria, with abundant algae and other phototrophs. These communities were distinct from microbial assemblages from experimentally-weathered DC rocks, suggesting different energy and nutrient resources in environmental samples. Sulfide mineral incubations performed with and without algae showed that photosynthetic microorganisms could have an inhibitory effect on autotrophic populations, resulting in slightly lower sulfate release and differences in dominant microorganisms. The microbial assemblages from these weathered outcrops show how communities develop during weathering of sulfide-rich DC rocks and represent baseline data that could evaluate the effectiveness of future reclamation of waste produced by large-scale mining operations.

Lack of Racial Diversity in Surgery and Pathology Textbooks Depicting Diseases of the Breast.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of racial diversity depicted in medical education texts may contribute to an implicit racial bias among clinicians. This bias influences outcomes, as familiarity with the various cutaneous manifestations of disease is essential to making an accurate diagnosis. To better understand the racial disparities in breast surgery, we sought to determine the extent of skin tone representation depicted in images of breast surgery and pathology textbooks. METHODS: Textbooks were screened for color images of conditions with sufficient skin tissue present to assign the Fitzpatrick skin phototype (FSP). Figures were independently assigned an FP score (range: 1-6), and subdivided into "light skin" (FP 1-3) and "dark skin" (FP 4-6). Number of figures in each category and percentage of patients with each skin tone were calculated. RESULTS: 557 figures were included. Among 12 textbooks reviewed, seven textbooks were from the discipline of surgery, while five were pathology-related. Textbook year of publication spanned from 1996 to 2018. Overall, 533 (95.7%) figures depicted patients with light skin color versus 24 (4.3%) with dark skin color. There was no association between FP score and year of textbook publication (P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Patient images in breast textbooks are overwhelmingly of light skin tones, excluding patients with darker skin tones. The dearth of images depicting dark skinned individuals did not improve over time. Inclusion of patients of color in future textbooks may help reduce racial disparities within breast cancer care.

The Association of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) With Surgical Management in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The rate of mastectomy in lumpectomy-eligible patients with unilateral breast cancer is increasing. We sought to investigate the association between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical management of patients with early-stage breast cancer by comparing the rate of mastectomy as first surgery in patients with and without preoperative MRI. METHODS: A bi-institutional retrospective study included patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2020. Lumpectomy-eligible patients with in situ and invasive cancer were included. Those receiving preoperative therapy, MRI before diagnosis, or with known bilateral cancer were excluded. The risk factors for bilateral and multicentric disease were accounted for. Fisher's exact and chi-square tests compared categorical variables, Wilcoxon two-sample test analyzed continuous variables, and multivariate analyses were performed with Poisson regression. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-eight participants met inclusion criteria. Patients who received MRI were younger (58 versus 67 y; P < 0.001) and had denser breasts (group 3 or 4; 61% versus 25%; P < 0.001). Mastectomy rate was twice as high in patients undergoing MRI (32% versus 15%, rate ratio 2.16; P < 0.001), which remained significant in multivariate analysis (rate ratio 2.0; P < 0.001). Contralateral mastectomy (12% versus 4%; P = 0.466) and reexcision (13% versus 12%; P = 0.519) rates were similar. Time to surgery was greater in those receiving MRI alone and MRI biopsy (34 [no MRI] versus 45 [MRI] versus 62 [MRI biopsy]; P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: MRI receipt is associated with a doubled rate of mastectomy in lumpectomy-eligible patients. Future work is needed to standardize patient selection for MRI to those with the highest likelihood of having additional undiagnosed disease.

Physical activity paradox: could inflammation be a key factor?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the extent to which physical activity performed during work and leisure is associated with systemic inflammation. METHODS: Data regarding job history and high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels, as well as potential confounders, came from the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank. The participants' self-reported job history was combined with a job exposure matrix to give a more valid assessment of cumulated occupational physical activity compared with conventional self-reported activity. Occupational physical activity was measured as cumulative ton-years (lifting 1000 kg each day for a year). Current leisure time physical activity was self-reported into four different categories. We analysed the association between occupational physical activity, current leisure time physical activity and hs-CRP level in a multivariable linear regression model with adjustment for age, sex, smoking history, number of chronic diseases, body mass index and alcohol. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, higher occupational physical activity was associated with increased hs-CRP levels, while higher leisure time physical activity was associated with lower hs-CRP levels. In adjusted analysis, lower leisure time physical activity resulted in 12% higher hs-CRP levels while higher occupational physical activities showed a 6% increase in hs-CRP. When we analysed occupational and leisure time physical activity as continuous variables, only leisure time physical activity affected hs-CRP. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the relationship between physical activity and hs-CRP depends on the setting of physical activity, with lower hs-CRP related to leisure time physical activity and higher hs-CRP related to occupational physical activity. The results suggest that systemic inflammation may explain the physical activity paradox.

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

The effects of adding quinolones to beta-lactam antibiotics for sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is common, deadly, and a major challenge to treat. Quinolones added to beta-lactam antibiotics are currently recommended as a second-line empiric regimen in sepsis, but the evidence regarding their benefits and harms is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of adding quinolones to standard care for sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, and BIOSIS. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of adding any quinolone to standard care for children and adults with sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. RESULTS: We included three trials randomizing 995 adults. All trials were at overall "high risk of bias." All trials compared a quinolone (moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, or ciprofloxacin) and a beta-lactam antibiotic versus the same beta-lactam antibiotic. We found no evidence of an effect of adding quinolones to beta-lactam antibiotics when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33; 2 trials; 915 participants; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 977 participants; two trials; very low certainty of evidence). No trials reported on quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of adding quinolones to beta-lactam antibiotics for the treatment of sepsis were unclear for all outcomes. Additional trial data are warranted to support the recommendation of empirical use of quinolones for sepsis.

Speleothem record of geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly recurrence.

The diminishing strength of the Earth's magnetic dipole over recent millennia is accompanied by the increasing prominence of the geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), which spreads over the South Atlantic Ocean and South America. The longevity of this feature at millennial timescales is elusive because of the scarcity of continuous geomagnetic data for the region. Here, we report a unique geomagnetic record for the last ∼1500 y that combines the data of two well-dated stalagmites from Pau d'Alho cave, located close to the present-day minimum of the anomaly in central South America. Magnetic directions and relative paleointensity data for both stalagmites are generally consistent and agree with historical data from the last 500 y. Before 1500 CE, the data adhere to the geomagnetic model ARCH3K.1, which is derived solely from archeomagnetic data. Our observations indicate rapid directional variations (>0.1°/y) from approximately 860 to 960 CE and approximately 1450 to 1750 CE. A similar pattern of rapid directional variation observed from South Africa precedes the South American record by 224 ± 50 y. These results confirm that fast geomagnetic field variations linked to the SAA are a recurrent feature in the region. We develop synthetic models of reversed magnetic flux patches at the core-mantle boundary and calculate their expression at the Earth's surface. The models that qualitatively resemble the observational data involve westward (and southward) migration of midlatitude patches, combined with their expansion and intensification.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

Holocene ENSO-related cyclic storms recorded by magnetic minerals in speleothems of central China.

Extreme hydrologic events such as storms and floods have the potential to severely impact modern human society. However, the frequency of storms and their underlying mechanisms are limited by a paucity of suitable proxies, especially in inland areas. Here we present a record of speleothem magnetic minerals to reconstruct paleoprecipitation, including storms, in the eastern Asian monsoon area over the last 8.6 ky. The geophysical parameter IRMsoft-flux represents the flux of soil-derived magnetic minerals preserved in stalagmite HS4, which we correlate with rainfall amount and intensity. IRMsoft-flux exhibits relatively higher values before 6.7 ky and after 3.4 ky and lower values in the intervening period, consistent with regional hydrological changes observed in independent records. Abrupt enhancements in the flux of pedogenic magnetite in the stalagmite agree well with the timing of known regional paleofloods and with equatorial El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) patterns, documenting the occurrence of ENSO-related storms in the Holocene. Spectral power analyses reveal that the storms occur on a significant 500-y cycle, coincident with periodic solar activity and ENSO variance, showing that reinforced (subdued) storms in central China correspond to reduced (increased) solar activity and amplified (damped) ENSO. Thus, the magnetic minerals in speleothem HS4 preserve a record of the cyclic storms controlled by the coupled atmosphere-oceanic circulation driven by solar activity.

No Surgical Innovation Without Evaluation: Evolution and Further Development of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To update, clarify, and extend IDEAL concepts and recommendations. BACKGROUND: New surgical procedures, devices, and other complex interventions need robust evaluation for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness. Unlike new medicines, there is no internationally agreed evaluation pathway for generating and analyzing data throughout the life cycle of surgical innovations. The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations were designed to provide this pathway and they have been used increasingly since their introduction in 2009. Based on a Delphi survey, expert workshop and major discussions during IDEAL conferences held in Oxford (2016) and New York (2017), this article updates and extends the IDEAL Recommendations, identifies areas for future research, and discusses the ethical problems faced by investigators at each IDEAL stage. METHODS: The IDEAL Framework describes 5 stages of evolution for new surgical therapeutic interventions-Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term Study. This comprehensive update proposes several modifications. First, a "Pre-IDEAL" stage describing preclinical studies has been added. Second we discuss potential adaptations to expand the scope of IDEAL (originally designed for surgical procedures) to accommodate therapeutic devices, through an IDEAL-D variant. Third, we explicitly recognise the value of comprehensive data collection through registries at all stages in the Framework and fourth, we examine the ethical issues that arise at each stage of IDEAL and underpin the recommendations. The Recommendations for each stage are reviewed, clarified and additional detail added. CONCLUSIONS: The intention of this article is to widen the practical use of IDEAL by clarifying the rationale for and practical details of the Recommendations. Additional research based on the experience of implementing these Recommendations is needed to further improve them.

Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL.

The quality of clinical research in surgery has long attracted criticism. High-quality randomised trials have proved difficult to undertake in surgery, and many surgical treatments have therefore been adopted without adequate supporting evidence of efficacy and safety. This evidence deficit can adversely affect research funding and reimbursement decisions, lead to slow adoption of innovations, and permit widespread adoption of procedures that offer no benefit, or cause harm. Improvement in the quality of surgical evidence would therefore be valuable. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term Follow-up (IDEAL) Framework and Recommendations specify desirable qualities for surgical studies, and outline an integrated evaluation pathway for surgery, and similar complex interventions. We used the IDEAL Recommendations to assess methodological progress in surgical research over time, assessed the uptake and influence of IDEAL, and identified the challenges to further methodological progress. Comparing studies from the periods 2000-04 and 2010-14, we noted apparent improvement in the use of standard outcome measures, adoption of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) standards, and assessment of the quality of surgery and of learning curves, but no progress in the use of qualitative research or reporting of modifications during procedure development. Better education about research, integration of rigorous evaluation into routine practice and training, and linkage of such work to awards systems could foster further improvements in surgical evidence. IDEAL has probably contributed only slightly to the improvements described to date, but its uptake is accelerating rapidly. The need for the integrated evaluation template IDEAL offers for surgery and other complex treatments is becoming more widely accepted.

Beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization, 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart diseases in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Acute myocardial infarction is caused by blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Beta-blockers are often used in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results ranging from harms, neutral effects, to benefits. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of beta-blockers for acute myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded and BIOSIS Citation Index in June 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Turning Research into Practice, Google Scholar, SciSearch, and the reference lists of included trials and previous reviews in August 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. Trials were included irrespective of trial design, setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the Cochrane methodological recommendations. Four review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. Our primary time point of interest was less than three months after randomisation. We also assessed the outcomes at maximum follow-up beyond three months. Due to risk of multiplicity, we calculated a 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes and a 98% CI for the secondary outcomes. We assessed the risks of systematic errors through seven bias domains in accordance to the instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 trials randomising a total of 85,550 participants (mean age 57.4 years). Only one trial was at low risk of bias. The remaining trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to high. Fifty-six trials commenced beta-blockers during the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction and seven trials during the subacute phase. At our primary time point 'less than three months follow-up', meta-analysis showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of a reinfarction during follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 98% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.91; 67,562 participants; 18 trials; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.5% and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 196 participants. However, we found little or no effect of beta-blockers when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 97.5% CI 0.90 to 1.00; 80,452 participants; 46 trials/47 comparisons; high-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4% and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; 45,852 participants; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4%. Regarding angina, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect (RR 0.70, 98% CI 0.25 to 1.84; 98 participants; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 7.1%. None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. Only two trials specifically assessed major adverse cardiovascular events, however, no major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in either trial. At maximum follow-up beyond three months, meta-analyses showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 97.5% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 25,210 participants; 21 trials/22 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% and a NNTB of 91 participants, and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 98% CI 0.83 to 0.98; 22,457 participants; 14 trials/15 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% and a NNTB of 83 participants. However, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect when assessing major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.81, 97.5% CI 0.40 to 1.66; 475 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%; reinfarction (RR 0.89, 98% CI 0.75 to 1.08; 6825 participants; 14 trials; low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.9%; and angina (RR 0.64, 98% CI 0.18 to 2.0; 844 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. None of the trials assessed quality of life. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials investigating the effect of early administration of beta-blockers after percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis to patients with an acute myocardial infarction and one ongoing trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our present review indicates that beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction probably reduce the short-term risk of a reinfarction and the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, it is most likely that beta-blockers have little or no effect on the short-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Regarding all remaining outcomes (serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up), the long-term risk of a reinfarction during follow-up, quality of life, and angina), further information is needed to confirm or reject the clinical effects of beta-blockers on these outcomes for people with or suspected of acute myocardial infarction.

Quinolones for sepsis. A protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a relatively common and deadly condition that constitutes a major challenge to the modern health care system. Quinolones are sometimes used in combination with beta-lactam antibiotics for sepsis, but no former systematic review has assessed the benefits and harms of quinolones in patients with sepsis. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis including randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of quinolones as add on therapy to usual care in children and adults with sepsis. For the assessment of harms, we will also include quasi-randomised studies and observational studies identified during our searches for randomised clinical trials. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will clarify if there is evidence to support quinolones being part of the standard treatment for sepsis.

The effects of dislocations on crystallographic twins and domain wall motion in magnetite at the Verwey transition.

Pure magnetite experiences a first-order phase transition (the Verwey transition) near 120-125 K wherein the mineral's symmetry changes from cubic to monoclinic. This transformation results in the formation of fine-scale crystallographic twins and is accompanied by a profound change in magnetic properties. The Verwey transition is critical to a variety of applications in environmental magnetism and paleomagnetism because its expression is diagnostic for the presence of stoichiometric (or nearly stoichiometric) magnetite and cycling through the Verwey transition tends to remove the majority of multidomain magnetic remanence. Internal and external stresses demonstrably affect the onset of the Verwey transition. Dislocations create localized internal stress fields and have been cited as a possible source of an altered Verwey transition in deformed samples. To further investigate this behavior, a laboratory-deformed magnetite sample was examined inside a transmission electron microscope as it was cooled through the Verwey transition. Operating the microscope in the Fresnel mode of Lorentz microscopy enabled imaging of the interactions between dislocations, magnetic domain walls, and low-temperature crystallographic twin formation during the phase transition. To relate the observed changes to more readily measurable bulk sample magnetic behavior, low-temperature magnetic measurements were also taken using SQUID magnetometry. This study allows us, for the first time, to observe the Verwey transition in a defect-rich area. Dislocations, and their associated stress fields, impede the development of monoclinic magnetite twin structures during the phase transition and increase the remanence of a magnetite sample after cooling and warming through the Verwey transition.

Is DCIS Overrated?

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the noninvasive form of breast cancer (BC), comprises just over 20% of breast cancer cases diagnosed each year in the USA. Most patients are treated with local excision of the disease followed by whole breast radiation therapy. Total mastectomy is not an uncommon approach, and total mastectomy with a contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy has been on the rise in the past decade. In estrogen receptor-positive disease, patients are often offered endocrine ablative therapy with a selective estrogen receptor modulator or an aromatase inhibitor as both treatment and prevention. Local regional treatment options have no impact upon ultimate overall survival. Long-term survival rates are higher in patients with DCIS than with any other form of the disease. Are these strikingly high success rates a testament to effective treatment strategies or is there a significant subset of DCIS that was unlikely to ever progress to invasive ductal carcinoma? DCIS was not seen in the US prior to the advent of screening mammography. When compared to other countries, the USA has the highest utilization of screening mammography and the incidence rate of DCIS. Other lines of evidence include autopsy series examining the breast tissue of women who died of other causes, missed-diagnosis series and current retrospective reviews of DCIS, all align in support of the concept of DCIS as indolent in the majority of cases [3-14]. The evidence suggests that both patient and physician misconceptions about DCIS have led to overdiagnosis and over-treatment of DCIS. Recently, a gene expression profiling tool (12 gene assay, Oncotype DCIS) has emerged that shows considerable promise in predicting class in DCIS patients.

Thrombolysis for acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: About 5% to 10% of all deep vein thromboses occur in the upper extremities. Serious complications of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, such as post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, may in theory be avoided using thrombolysis. No systematic review has assessed the effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (29 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and three trial registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISRCTN registry) for ongoing and unpublished studies. We additionally searched the registries of the European Medical Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration (December 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of publication type, publication date and language that investigated the effects of thrombolytics added to anticoagulation, thrombolysis versus anticoagulation, or thrombolysis versus any other type of medical intervention for the treatment of acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all records to identify those that met inclusion criteria. We planned to use the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We planned to use trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias) in the trials. We planned to conduct trial sequential analyses to control for the risk of random errors and to assess the robustness of our conclusions. We planned to consider a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were severe bleeding, pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality. MAIN RESULTS: We found no trials eligible for inclusion. We also identified no ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence from which to draw conclusion on the benefits or harms of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis as an add-on therapy to anticoagulation, alone compared with anticoagulation, or alone compared with any other type of medical intervention. Large randomised clinical trials with a low risk of bias are warranted. They should focus on clinical outcomes and not solely on surrogate measures.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.No trials reported results on quality of life or angina. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.More randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.