Factors associated with posttraumatic stress and anxiety among the parents of babies admitted to neonatal care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress (PTS) and anxiety are common mental health problems among parents of babies admitted to a neonatal unit (NNU). This review aimed to identify sociodemographic, pregnancy and birth, and psychological factors associated with PTS and anxiety in this population. METHOD: Studies published up to December 2022 were retrieved by searching Medline, Embase, PsychoINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health electronic databases. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and cross-sectional studies was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. This review was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021270526). RESULTS: Forty-nine studies involving 8,447 parents were included; 18 studies examined factors for PTS, 24 for anxiety and 7 for both. Only one study of anxiety factors was deemed to be of good quality. Studies generally included a small sample size and were methodologically heterogeneous. Pooling of data was not feasible. Previous history of mental health problems (four studies) and parental perception of more severe infant illness (five studies) were associated with increased risk of PTS, and had the strongest evidence. Shorter gestational age (≤ 33 weeks) was associated with an increased risk of anxiety (three studies) and very low birth weight (< 1000g) was associated with an increased risk of both PTS and anxiety (one study). Stress related to the NNU environment was associated with both PTS (one study) and anxiety (two studies), and limited data suggested that early engagement in infant's care (one study), efficient parent-staff communication (one study), adequate social support (two studies) and positive coping mechanisms (one study) may be protective factors for both PTS and anxiety. Perinatal anxiety, depression and PTS were all highly comorbid conditions (as with the general population) and the existence of one mental health condition was a risk factor for others. CONCLUSION: Heterogeneity limits the interpretation of findings. Until clearer evidence is available on which parents are most at risk, good communication with parents and universal screening of PTS and anxiety for all parents whose babies are admitted to NNU is needed to identify those parents who may benefit most from mental health interventions.

Correlates of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in the general adult population of China: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a significant public health issue in China. Understanding factors associated with chronic HBV is important to enable targeted screening and education and to improve early diagnosis and prevention of disease progression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and describe correlates of chronic HBV among Chinese adults. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and grey literature up to 25 June 2020. Eligible papers included observational studies in adults of the general population in China that reported factors associated with chronic HBV, measured by Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect models of HBsAg prevalence among factors, and of adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for chronic HBV associated with each factor. Overall 39 articles were included, covering 22 factors, including a range of sociodemographic, behavioural and medical factors. In meta-analysis of eligible studies, a range of factors were significantly associated with higher HBsAg prevalence, including middle age, male sex, being married, rural residence, lower education, smoking, having a HBsAg positive household contact, family history of HBV, history of surgery or blood transfusion. The adjusted ORs varied, from 1.11 (95% CI 1.05-1.18) for smoking to 5.13 (95% CI 4.99-5.26) for having a HBsAg positive household contact. In Chinese adults, a range of factors are associated with chronic HBV infection, which may help inform targeted screening in the general population.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening. SEARCH METHODS: We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals.

AIMS: To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to establish priorities for future research in diabetes and pregnancy, according to women with experience of pregnancy, and planning pregnancy, with any type of diabetes, their support networks and healthcare professionals. METHODS: The PSP used established James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology working with women and their support networks and healthcare professionals UK-wide. Unanswered questions about the time before, during or after pregnancy with any type of diabetes were identified using an online survey and broad-level literature search. A second survey identified a shortlist of questions for final prioritisation at an online consensus development workshop. RESULTS: There were 466 responses (32% healthcare professionals) to the initial survey, with 1161 questions, which were aggregated into 60 unanswered questions. There were 614 responses (20% healthcare professionals) to the second survey and 18 questions shortlisted for ranking at the workshop. The top 10 questions were: diabetes technology, the best test for diabetes during pregnancy, diet and lifestyle interventions for diabetes management during pregnancy, emotional and well-being needs of women with diabetes pre- to post-pregnancy, safe full-term birth, post-natal care and support needs of women, diagnosis and management late in pregnancy, prevention of other types of diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, women's labour and birth experiences and choices and improving planning pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities provide guidance for research funders and researchers to target research in diabetes and pregnancy that will achieve greatest value and impact.

Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Single-agent pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is currently the standard of care as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression is less than 50%. Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has also been approved in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic antibody) in first-line NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression. The combination of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has also been shown to improve survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, particularly in people with high tumour mutational burden (TMB). The association of ipilimumab (an anti CTLA4) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in all patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Although these antibodies are currently used in clinical practice, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best-treatment strategy, the role of different biomarkers for treatment selection and the effectiveness of immunotherapy according to specific clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination, compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced NSCLC, according to the level of PD-L1 expression. SEARCH METHODS: We performed an electronic search of the main databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase) from inception until 31 December 2020 and conferences meetings from 2015 onwards. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy or safety of first-line ICI treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC who had not previously received any anticancer treatment. We included trials comparing single- or double-ICI treatment to standard first-line therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy +/- bevacizumab). All data come from 'international multicentre studies involving adults, age 18 or over, with histologically-confirmed stage IV NSCLC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the search results and a fourth review author resolved any disagreements. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1, grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (CTCAE v 5.0) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the random-effects model for hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Main results We identified 15 trials for inclusion, seven completed and eight ongoing trials. We obtained data for 5893 participants from seven trials comparing first-line single- (six trials) or double- (two trials) agent ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy, one trial comparing both first-line single- and double-agent ICsI with platinum-based chemotherapy. All trials were at low risk of selection and detection bias, some were classified at high risk of performance, attrition or other source of bias. The overall certainty of evidence according to GRADE ranged from moderate-to-low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. The majority of the included trials reported their outcomes by PD-L1 expressions, with PD-L1 ≥ 50 being considered the most clinically useful cut-off level for decision makers. Also, iIn order to avoid overlaps between various PDL-1 expressions we prioritised the review outcomes according to PD-L1 ≥ 50. Single-agent ICI In the PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% group single-agent ICI probably improved OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.76, 6 RCTs, 2111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In this group, single-agent ICI also may improve PFS (HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88, 5 RCTs, 1886 participants, low-certainty evidence) and ORR (risk ratio (RR):1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75, 4 RCTs, 1672 participants, low-certainty evidence). HRQoL data were available for only one study including only people with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, which suggested that single-agent ICI may improve HRQoL at 15 weeks compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.10, 1 RCT, 297 participants, low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, treatment-related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. Grade 3-4 AEs may be less frequent with single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50, I² = 62%, 5 RCTs, 3346 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status or specific clinical characteristics is available in the full text. Double-agent ICI Double-ICI treatment probably prolonged OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in people with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89 2 RCTs, 612 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Trials did not report data on HRQoL, PFS and ORR according to PD-L1 groups. Treatment related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. The frequency of grade 3-4 AEs may not differ between double-ICI treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, I² = 81%, 2 RCTs, 1869 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of double-agent ICI according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status is available in the full text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Authors' conclusions The evidence in this review suggests that single-agent ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% probably leads to a higher overall survival rate and may lead to a higher progression-free survival and overall response rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy and may also lead to a lower rate of adverse events and higher HRQoL. Combined ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% also probably leads to a higher overall survival rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, but its effect on progression-free survival, overall response rate and HRQoL is unknown due to a lack of data. The rate of adverse events may not differ between groups. This review used to be a living review. It is transitioned out of living mode because current research is exploring ICI in association with chemotherapy or other immunotherapeutic drugs versus ICI as single agent rather than platinum based chemotherapy.

Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Single-agent pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is currently the standard of care as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression is less than 50%. Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has also been approved in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic antibody) in first-line NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression. The combination of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has also been shown to improve survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, particularly in people with high tumour mutational burden (TMB). The association of ipilimumab (an anti CTLA4) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in all patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Although these antibodies are currently used in clinical practice, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best-treatment strategy, the role of different biomarkers for treatment selection and the effectiveness of immunotherapy according to specific clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective: to determine the effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination, compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced NSCLC, according to the level of PD-L1 expression. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: to maintain the currency of evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We performed an electronic search of the main databases (Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase) from inception until 21 October 2020 and conferences meetings from 2015 onwards. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy or safety of first-line ICI treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC who had not previously received any anticancer treatment. We included trials comparing single- or double-ICI treatment to standard first-line therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy +/- bevacizumab). All data come from 'international multicentre studies involving adults, age 18 or over, with histologically-confirmed stage IV NSCLC who had not received any previous systemic anti-cancer treatment for advanced disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the search results and a fourth review author resolved any disagreements. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1, grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (CTCAE v 5.0) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the random-effects model for hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Main results We identified 15 trials for inclusion, seven completed and eight ongoing trials. We obtained data for 5893 participants from seven trials comparing first-line single- (six trials) or double- (two trials) agent ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy, one trial comparing both first-line single- and double-agent ICsI with platinum-based chemotherapy. All trials were at low risk of selection and detection bias, some were classified at high risk of performance, attrition or other source of bias. The overall certainty of evidence according to GRADE ranged from moderate-to-low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. The majority of the included trials reported their outcomes by PD-L1 expressions, with PD-L1 ≥ 50 being considered the most clinically useful cut-off level for decision makers. Also, iIn order to avoid overlaps between various PDL-1 expressions we prioritised the review outcomes according to PD-L1 ≥ 50. Single-agent ICI In the PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% group single-agent ICI probably improved OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.76, 6 RCTs, 2111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In this group, single-agent ICI also may improve PFS (HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88, 5 RCTs, 1886 participants, low-certainty evidence) and ORR (risk ratio (RR):1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75, 4 RCTs, 1672 participants, low-certainty evidence). HRQoL data were available for only one study including only people with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, which suggested that single-agent ICI may improve HRQoL at 15 weeks compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.10, 1 RCT, 297 participants, low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, treatment-related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. Grade 3-4 AEs may be less frequent with single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50, I² = 62%, 5 RCTs, 3346 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status or specific clinical characteristics is available in the full text. Double-agent ICI Double-ICI treatment probably prolonged OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in people with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89 2 RCTs, 612 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Trials did not report data on HRQoL, PFS and ORR according to PD-L1 groups. Treatment related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. The frequency of grade 3-4 AEs may not differ between double-ICI treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, I² = 81%, 2 RCTs, 1869 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of double-agent ICI according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status is available in the full text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Authors' conclusions The evidence in this review suggests that single-agent ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% probably leads to a higher overall survival rate and may lead to a higher progression-free survival and overall response rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy and may also lead to a lower rate of adverse events and higher HRQoL. Combined ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% also probably leads to a higher overall survival rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, but its effect on progression-free survival, overall response rate and HRQoL is unknown due to a lack of data. The rate of adverse events may not differ between groups.

First-Time Mothers' Expectations and Experiences of Postnatal Care in England.

Postnatal care is the aspect of maternity care with which women in England are least satisfied. Little is known about first-time mothers' expectations of postnatal care, or how these expectations relate to their experiences and appraisal of care. Thirty-two first-time mothers took part in a longitudinal qualitative descriptive study, based on two semi-structured interviews-the first in pregnancy, and the second 2 to 3 months after birth. Trajectory analysis was used to identify the thematic patterns in the relationships between postnatal care expectations, needs, experiences, and confidence. Five trajectories were identified, showing that mothers' satisfaction with postnatal care and confidence were primarily influenced not by the extent to which their expectations were met but the varied extent to which their individual postnatal needs were met. Rapid and responsive assessment of needs both antenatally and postnatally, and appropriate adjustment of care, is key in supporting women effectively at this time.

Antidepressants for treating depression in dementia.

BACKGROUND: The use of antidepressants in dementia accompanied by depressive symptoms is widespread, but their clinical efficacy is uncertain. This review updates an earlier version, first published in 2002. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of any type of antidepressant for patients who have been diagnosed as having dementia of any type and depression as defined by recognised criteria. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, on 16 August 2017. ALOIS contains information on trials retrieved from databases and from a number of trial registers and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all relevant double-blind, randomised trials comparing any antidepressant drug with placebo, for patients diagnosed as having dementia and depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion and extracted data independently. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Where clinically appropriate, we pooled data for treatment periods up to three months and from three to nine months. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included ten studies with a total of 1592 patients. Eight included studies reported sufficiently detailed results to enter into analyses related to antidepressant efficacy. We split one study which included two different antidepressants and therefore had nine groups of patients treated with antidepressants compared with nine groups receiving placebo treatment. Information needed to make 'Risk of bias' judgements was often missing.We found high-quality evidence of little or no difference in scores on depression symptom rating scales between the antidepressant and placebo treated groups after 6 to 13 weeks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to 0.06; 614 participants; 8 studies). There was probably also little or no difference between groups after six to nine months (mean difference (MD) 0.59 point, 95% CI -1.12 to 2.3, 357 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence on response rates at 12 weeks was of low quality, and imprecision in the result meant we were uncertain of any effect of antidepressants (antidepressant: 49.1%, placebo: 37.7%; odds ratio (OR) 1.71, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.67; 116 participants; 3 studies). However, the remission rate was probably higher in the antidepressant group than the placebo group (antidepressant: 40%, placebo: 21.7%; OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.59; 240 participants; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The largest of these studies continued for another 12 weeks, but because of imprecision of the result we could not be sure of any effect of antidepressants on remission rates after 24 weeks. There was evidence of no effect of antidepressants on performance of activities of daily living at weeks 6 to 13 (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.25; 173 participants; 4 studies; high-quality evidence) and probably also little or no effect on cognition (MD 0.33 point on the Mini-Mental State Examination, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.96; 194 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence).Participants on antidepressants were probably more likely to drop out of treatment than those on placebo over 6 to 13 weeks (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.14; 836 participants; 9 studies). The meta-analysis of the number of participants suffering at least one adverse event showed a significant difference in favour of placebo (antidepressant: 49.2%, placebo: 38.4%; OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.98, 1073 participants; 3 studies), as did the analyses for participants suffering one event of dry mouth (antidepressant: 19.6%, placebo: 13.3%; OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.63, 1044 participants; 5 studies), and one event of dizziness (antidepressant: 19.2%, placebo: 12.5%; OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.98, 1044 participants; 5 studies). Heterogeneity in the way adverse events were reported in studies presented a major difficulty for meta-analysis, but there was some evidence that antidepressant treatment causes more adverse effects than placebo treatment does. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is of variable quality and does not provide strong support for the efficacy of antidepressants for treating depression in dementia, especially beyond 12 weeks. On the only measure of efficacy for which we had high-quality evidence (depression rating scale scores), antidepressants showed little or no effect. The evidence on remission rates favoured antidepressants but was of moderate quality, so future research may find a different result. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about individual antidepressant drugs or about subtypes of dementia or depression. There is some evidence that antidepressant treatment may cause adverse events.

Prophylactic platelet transfusions prior to surgery for people with a low platelet count.

BACKGROUND: People with thrombocytopenia often require a surgical procedure. A low platelet count is a relative contraindication to surgery due to the risk of bleeding. Platelet transfusions are used in clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people with thrombocytopenia. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to surgery. Alternatives to platelet transfusion are also used prior surgery. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions prior to surgery for people with a low platelet count. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following major data bases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), PubMed (e-publications only), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Transfusion Evidence Library and ongoing trial databases to 11 December 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), that met Cochrane EPOC (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care) criteria, that involved the transfusion of platelets prior to surgery (any dose, at any time, single or multiple) in people with low platelet counts. We excluded studies on people with a low platelet count who were actively bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection. We were only able to combine data for two outcomes and we presented the rest of the findings in a narrative form. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five RCTs, all conducted in adults; there were no eligible non-randomised studies. Three completed trials enrolled 180 adults and two ongoing trials aim to include 627 participants. The completed trials were conducted between 2005 and 2009. The two ongoing trials are scheduled to complete recruitment by October 2019. One trial compared prophylactic platelet transfusions to no transfusion in people with thrombocytopenia in an intensive care unit (ICU). Two small trials, 108 participants, compared prophylactic platelet transfusions to other alternative treatments in people with liver disease. One trial compared desmopressin to fresh frozen plasma or one unit of platelet transfusion or both prior to surgery. The second trial compared platelet transfusion prior to surgery with two types of thrombopoietin mimetics: romiplostim and eltrombopag. None of the included trials were free from methodological bias. No included trials compared different platelet count thresholds for administering a prophylactic platelet transfusion prior to surgery. None of the included trials reported on all the review outcomes and the overall quality per reported outcome was very low.None of the three completed trials reported: all-cause mortality at 90 days post surgery; mortality secondary to bleeding, thromboembolism or infection; number of red cell or platelet transfusions per participant; length of hospital stay; or quality of life.None of the trials included children or people who needed major surgery or emergency surgical procedures.Platelet transfusion versus no platelet transfusion (1 trial, 72 participants)We were very uncertain whether giving a platelet transfusion prior to surgery had any effect on all-cause mortality within 30 days (1 trial, 72 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.45; very-low quality evidence). We were very uncertain whether giving a platelet transfusion prior to surgery had any effect on the risk of major (1 trial, 64 participants; RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.92; very low-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (1 trial, 64 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85; very-low quality evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either study arm (1 trial, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence).Platelet transfusion versus alternative to platelet transfusion (2 trials, 108 participants)We were very uncertain whether giving a platelet transfusion prior to surgery compared to an alternative has any effect on the risk of major (2 trials, 108 participants; no events; very low-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (desmopressin: 1 trial, 36 participants; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23; very-low quality evidence: thrombopoietin mimetics: 1 trial, 65 participants; no events; very-low quality evidence). We were very uncertain whether there was a difference in transfusion-related adverse effects between the platelet transfused group and the alternative treatment group (desmopressin: 1 trial, 36 participants; RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.12 to 62.17; very-low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this review were based on three small trials involving minor surgery in adults with thrombocytopenia. We found insufficient evidence to recommend the administration of preprocedure prophylactic platelet transfusions in this situation with a lack of evidence that transfusion resulted in a reduction in postoperative bleeding or all-cause mortality. The small number of trials meeting the inclusion criteria and the limitation in reported outcomes across the trials precluded meta-analysis for most outcomes. Further adequately powered trials, in people of all ages, of prophylactic platelet transfusions compared with no transfusion, other alternative treatments, and considering different platelet thresholds prior to planned and emergency surgical procedures are required. Future trials should include major surgery and report on bleeding, adverse effects, mortality (as a long-term outcome) after surgery, duration of hospital stay and quality of life measures.

Comparison of a therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy for people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow disorders encompass a group of diseases characterised by reduced production of red cells, white cells, and platelets, or defects in their function, or both. The most common bone marrow disorder is myelodysplastic syndrome. Thrombocytopenia, a low platelet count, commonly occurs in people with bone marrow failure. Platetet transfusions are routinely used in people with thrombocytopenia secondary to bone marrow failure disorders to treat or prevent bleeding. Myelodysplastic syndrome is currently the most common reason for receiving a platelet transfusion in some Western countries. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (transfusion given when patient is bleeding) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (transfusion given to prevent bleeding according to a prespecified platelet threshold) in people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid Embase (from 1974), PubMed (e-publications only), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 12 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, non-RCTs, and CBAs that involved the transfusion of platelet concentrates (prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis any dose, frequency, or transfusion trigger) and given to treat or prevent bleeding among people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders.We excluded uncontrolled studies, cross-sectional studies, and case-control studies. We excluded cluster-RCTs, non-randomised cluster trials, and CBAs with fewer than two intervention sites and two control sites due to the risk of confounding. We included all people with long-term bone marrow failure disorders that require platelet transfusions, including neonates. We excluded studies of alternatives to platelet transfusion, or studies of people receiving intensive chemotherapy or a stem cell transplant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane. Due to the absence of evidence we were unable to report on any of the review outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT that met the inclusion criteria for this review. The study enrolled only nine adults with MDS over a three-year study duration period. The trial was terminated due to poor recruitment rate (planned recruitment 60 participants over two years). Assessment of the risk of bias was not possible for all domains. The trial was a single-centre, single-blind trial. The clinical and demographic characteristics of the participants were never disclosed. The trial outcomes relevant to this review were bleeding assessments, mortality, quality of life, and length of hospital stay, but no data were available to report on any of these outcomes.We identified no completed non-RCTs or CBAs.We identified no ongoing RCTs, non-RCTs, or CBAs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of therapeutic platelet transfusion compared with prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with long-term bone marrow failure disorders. This review underscores the urgency of prioritising research in this area. People with bone marrow failure depend on long-term platelet transfusion support, but the only trial that assessed a therapeutic strategy was halted. There is a need for good-quality studies comparing a therapeutic platelet transfusion strategy with a prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy; such trials should include outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life, length of hospital admission, and risk of bleeding.

Use of platelet transfusions prior to lumbar punctures or epidural anaesthesia for the prevention of complications in people with thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: People with a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) often require lumbar punctures or an epidural anaesthetic. Lumbar punctures can be diagnostic (haematological malignancies, subarachnoid haematoma, meningitis) or therapeutic (spinal anaesthetic, administration of chemotherapy). Epidural catheters are placed for administration of epidural anaesthetic. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to lumbar punctures and epidural anaesthesia, in order to mitigate the risk of serious procedure-related bleeding. However, the platelet count threshold recommended prior to these procedures varies significantly from country to country. This indicates significant uncertainty among clinicians regarding the correct management of these patients. The risk of bleeding appears to be low, but if bleeding occurs it can be very serious (spinal haematoma). Consequently, people may be exposed to the risks of a platelet transfusion without any obvious clinical benefit.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to a lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthesia in people with thrombocytopenia (low platelet count). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series studies (ITSs), and cohort studies in CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 13 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, ITSs, and cohort studies involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people of any age with thrombocytopenia requiring insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter.The original review only included RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for including RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, and ITSs. Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were only expressed narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no completed or ongoing RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, or ITSs. No studies included people undergoing an epidural procedure. No studies compared different platelet count thresholds prior to a procedure.In this update we identified three retrospective cohort studies that contained participants who did and did not receive platelet transfusions prior to lumbar puncture procedures. All three studies were carried out in people with cancer, most of whom had a haematological malignancy. Two studies were in children, and one was in adults.The number of participants receiving platelet transfusions prior to the lumbar puncture procedures was not reported in one study. We therefore only summarised in a narrative form the relevant outcomes from two studies (150 participants; 129 children and 21 adults), in which the number of participants who received the transfusion was given.We judged the overall risk of bias for all reported outcomes for both studies as 'serious' based on the ROBINS-I tool.No procedure-related major bleeding occurred in the two studies that reported this outcome (2 studies, 150 participants, no cases, very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of minor bleeding (traumatic tap) in participants who received platelet transfusions before a lumbar puncture and those who did not receive a platelet transfusion before the procedure (2 studies, 150 participants, very low-quality evidence). One of the 14 adults who received a platelet transfusion experienced minor bleeding (traumatic tap; defined as at least 500 x 106/L red blood cells in the cerebrospinal fluid); none of the seven adults who did not receive a platelet transfusion experienced this event. Ten children experienced minor bleeding (traumatic taps; defined as at least 100 x 106/L red blood cells in the cerebrospinal fluid), six out of the 57 children who received a platelet transfusion and four out of the 72 children who did not receive a platelet transfusion.No serious adverse events occurred in the one study that reported this outcome (1 study, 21 participants, very low-quality evidence).We found no studies that evaluated all-cause mortality within 30 days from the lumbar puncture procedure, length of hospital stay, proportion of participants who received platelet transfusions, or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from RCTs or non-randomised studies on which to base an assessment of the correct platelet transfusion threshold prior to insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter. There are no ongoing registered RCTs assessing the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to the insertion of a lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthesia in people with thrombocytopenia. Any future study would need to be very large to detect a difference in the risk of bleeding. A study would need to be designed with at least 47,030 participants to be able to detect an increase in the number of people who had major procedure-related bleeding from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000. The use of a central data collection register or routinely collected electronic records (big data) is likely to be the only method to systematically gather data relevant to this population.

Risk Factor Models for Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Children Born Very Preterm or With Very Low Birth Weight: A Systematic Review of Methodology and Reporting.

The prediction of long-term outcomes in surviving infants born very preterm (VPT) or with very low birth weight (VLBW) is necessary to guide clinical management, provide information to parents, and help target and evaluate interventions. There is a large body of literature describing risk factor models for neurodevelopmental outcomes in VPT/VLBW children, yet few, if any, have been developed for use in routine clinical practice or adopted for use in research studies or policy evaluation. We sought to systematically review the methods and reporting of studies that have developed a multivariable risk factor model for neurodevelopment in surviving VPT/VLBW children. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from January 1, 1990, to June 1, 2014, and identified 78 studies reporting 222 risk factor models. Most studies presented risk factor analyses that were not intended to be used for prediction, confirming that there is a dearth of specifically designed prognostic modeling studies for long-term outcomes in surviving VPT/VLBW children. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the research methodology and reporting to date, and provide recommendations for the design and analysis of future studies seeking to analyze risk prediction or develop prognostic models for VPT/VLBW children.

Prophylactic platelet transfusions prior to surgery for people with a low platelet count.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions prior to surgery for people with a low platelet count or platelet dysfunction (inherited or acquired).

Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I2 = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I2 = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I2 = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I2 = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I2 = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I2 = 15%; high-quality evidence).None of the studies reported quality of life.We did not evaluate any economic outcomes.There was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.In people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.All three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support.

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia, and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion plays an essential supportive role in their management. Different strategies have been developed for RBC transfusions. A restrictive transfusion strategy seeks to maintain a lower haemoglobin level (usually between 70 g/L to 90 g/L) with a trigger for transfusion when the haemoglobin drops below 70 g/L), whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher haemoglobin (usually between 100 g/L to 120 g/L, with a threshold for transfusion when haemoglobin drops below 100 g/L). In people undergoing surgery or who have been admitted to intensive care a restrictive transfusion strategy has been shown to be safe and in some cases safer than a liberal transfusion strategy. However, it is not known whether it is safe in people with haematological malignancies. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised trials (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 6), and 10 other databases (including four trial registries) to 15 June 2016. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There was no restriction on language, date or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal RBC transfusion strategy in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six studies eligible for inclusion in this review; five RCTs and one NRS. Three completed RCTs (156 participants), one completed NRS (84 participants), and two ongoing RCTs. We identified one additional RCT awaiting classification. The completed studies were conducted between 1997 and 2015 and had a mean follow-up from 31 days to 2 years. One study included children receiving a HSCT (six participants), the other three studies only included adults: 218 participants with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy, and 16 with a haematological malignancy receiving a HSCT. The restrictive strategies varied from 70 g/L to 90 g/L. The liberal strategies also varied from 80 g/L to 120 g/L.Based on the GRADE rating methodology the overall quality of the included studies was very low to low across different outcomes. None of the included studies were free from bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. One of the three RCTs was discontinued early for safety concerns after recruiting only six children, all three participants in the liberal group developed veno-occlusive disease (VOD). Evidence from RCTsA restrictive RBC transfusion policy may make little or no difference to: the number of participants who died within 100 days (two trials, 95 participants (RR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.69, low-quality evidence); the number of participants who experienced any bleeding (two studies, 149 participants; RR:0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18, low-quality evidence), or clinically significant bleeding (two studies, 149 participants, RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.43, low-quality evidence); the number of participants who required RBC transfusions (three trials; 155 participants: RR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, low-quality evidence); or the length of hospital stay (restrictive median 35.5 days (interquartile range (IQR): 31.2 to 43.8); liberal 36 days (IQR: 29.2 to 44), low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether the restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: decreases quality of life (one trial, 89 participants, fatigue score: restrictive median 4.8 (IQR 4 to 5.2); liberal median 4.5 (IQR 3.6 to 5) (very low-quality evidence); or reduces the risk of developing any serious infection (one study, 89 participants, RR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.04, very low-quality evidence).A restrictive RBC transfusion policy may reduce the number of RBC transfusions per participant (two trials; 95 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.58, 95% CI -5.66 to -1.49, low-quality evidence). Evidence from NRSWe are uncertain whether the restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-quality evidence); decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-quality evidence); or decreases the number of RBC transfusions (adjusted for age, sex and acute myeloid leukaemia type geometric mean 1.25; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47 - data analysis performed by the study authors)No NRS were found that looked at: quality of life; number of participants with any bleeding; serious infection; or length of hospital stay.No studies were found that looked at: adverse transfusion reactions; arterial or venous thromboembolic events; length of intensive care admission; or readmission to hospital. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on four studies and 240 participants.There is low-quality evidence that a restrictive RBC transfusion policy reduces the number of RBC transfusions per participant. There is low-quality evidence that a restrictive RBC transfusion policy has little or no effect on: mortality at 30 to 100 days, bleeding, or hospital stay. This evidence is mainly based on adults with acute leukaemia who are having chemotherapy. Although, the two ongoing studies (530 participants) are due to be completed by January 2018 and will provide additional information for adults with haematological malignancies, we will not be able to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days we would need 1492 participants to have a 80% chance of detecting, as significant at the 5% level, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are required in children.

Specialist antenatal clinics for women at high risk of preterm birth: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Women with previous prenatal loss are at higher risk of preterm birth. A specialist antenatal clinic is considered as one approach to improve maternity and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies conducted on women at high risk of preterm birth (PTB). The review primary outcomes were to report on the specialist antenatal clinics effect in preventing or reducing preterm birth, perinatal mortality and morbidity and women's perceptions and experiences of a specialist clinic whether compared or not compared with standard antenatal care. Other secondary maternal, infant and economic outcomes were also determined. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in English within electronic databases as far back as 1980. The reviewers selected studies, assessed the quality, and extracted data independently. Results were summarized and tabulated. RESULTS: Eleven studies fully met the review inclusion criteria, ten were quantitative design studies and only one was a qualitative design study. No mixed method design study was included in the review. All were published after 1989, seven were conducted in the USA and four in the UK. Results from five good to low quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), all conducted before 1990, did not illustrate the efficacy of the clinic in reducing preterm birth. Whereas results from more recent low quality cohort studies showed some positive neonatal outcomes. Themes from one good quality qualitative study reflected on the emotional and psychological need to reduce anxiety and stress of women referred to such a clinic. Women expressed their negative emotional responses at being labelled as high risk and positive responses to being assessed and treated in the clinic. Women also reported that their partners were struggling to cope emotionally. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were mixed. Evidence from cohort studies indicated a specialist clinic may be a means of predicting or preventing preterm birth. Testing this in a randomised controlled trial is desirable, though may be hard to achieve due to the growing focus of such clinics on managing women at high risk of preterm birth. Ongoing research has to recognize women's experiences and perceptions of such a clinic. Further clarification of the optimal referral route and a clear and standardized management and cost economic evaluation plan are also required. Fathers support and experience of PTB clinics should also be included in further research.

What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a 'best fit' framework approach.

BACKGROUND: English maternity care policy has supported offering women choice of birth setting for over twenty years, but only 13% of women in England currently give birth in settings other than obstetric units (OUs). It is unclear why uptake of non-OU settings for birth remains relatively low. This paper presents a synthesis of qualitative evidence which explores influences on women's experiences of birth place choice, preference and decision-making from the perspectives of women using maternity services. METHODS: Qualitative evidence synthesis of UK research published January 1992-March 2015, using a 'best-fit' framework approach. Searches were run in seven electronic data bases applying a comprehensive search strategy. Thematic framework analysis was used to synthesise extracted data from included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers drawing on twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The synthesis identified support for the key framework themes. Women's experiences of choosing or deciding where to give birth were influenced by whether they received information about available options and about the right to choose, women's preferences for different services and their attributes, previous birth experiences, views of family, friends and health care professionals and women's beliefs about risk and safety. The synthesis additionally identified that women's access to choice of place of birth during the antenatal period varied. Planning to give birth in OU was straightforward, but although women considering birth in a setting other than hospital OU were sometimes well-supported, they also encountered obstacles and described needing to 'counter the negativity' surrounding home birth or birth in midwife-led settings. CONCLUSIONS: Over the period covered by the review, it was straightforward for low risk women to opt for hospital birth in the UK. Accessing home birth was more complex and contested. The evidence on freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) is more limited, but suggests that women wanting to opt for an FMU birth experienced similar barriers. The extent to which women experienced similar problems accessing alongside midwifery units (AMUs) is unclear. Women's preferences for different birth options, particularly for 'hospital' vs non-hospital settings, are shaped by their pre-existing values, beliefs and experience, and not all women are open to all birth settings.

Prognostic factors for cerebral palsy and motor impairment in children born very preterm or very low birthweight: a systematic review.

AIM: There is a large literature reporting risk factor analyses for poor neurodevelopment in children born very preterm (VPT: ≤32wks) or very low birthweight (VLBW: ≤1250g), which to date has not been formally summarized. The aim of this paper was to identify prognostic factors for cerebral palsy (CP) and motor impairment in children born VPT/VLBW. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted using Medline, Embase, and Pyscinfo databases to identify studies published between 1 January 1990 and 1 June 2014 reporting multivariable prediction models for poor neurodevelopment in VPT/VLBW children (registration number CRD42014006943). Twenty-eight studies for motor outcomes were identified. RESULTS: There was strong evidence that intraventricular haemorrhage and periventricular leukomalacia, and some evidence that the use of postnatal steroids and non-use of antenatal steroids, were prognostic factors for CP. Male sex and gestational age were of limited use as prognostic factors for CP in cohorts restricted to ≤32 weeks gestation; however, in children older than 5 years with no major disability, there was evidence that male sex was a predictive factor for motor impairment. INTERPRETATION: This review has identified factors which may be of prognostic value for CP and motor impairment in VPT/VLBW children and will help to form the basis of future prognostic research.

Women's birth place preferences in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the quantitative literature.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines and national policy in England support offering 'low risk' women a choice of birth setting, but despite an increase in provison of midwifery units in England the vast majority of women still give birth in obstetric units and there is uncertainty around how best to configure services. There is therefore a need to better understand women's birth place preferences. The aim of this review was to summarise the recent quantitative evidence on UK women's birth place preferences with a focus on identifying the service attributes that 'low risk' women prefer and on identifying which attributes women prioritise when choosing their intended maternity unit or birth setting. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Science Index, CINAHL and ASSIA to identify quantitative studies published in scientific journals since 1992 and designed to describe and explore women's preferences in relation to place of birth. We included experimental stated preference studies, surveys and mixed-methods studies containing relevant quantitative data, where participants were 'low risk' or 'unselected' groups of women with experience of UK maternity services. RESULTS: We included five experimental stated preference studies and four observational surveys, including a total of 4201 respondents. Most studies were old with only three conducted since 2000. Methodological quality was generally poor. The attributes and preferences most commonly explored related to pain relief, continuity of midwife, involvement/availability of medical staff, 'homely' environment/atmosphere, decision-making style, distance/travel time and need for transfer. Service attributes that were almost universally valued by women included local services, being attended by a known midwife and a preference for a degree of control and involvement in decision-making. A substantial proportion of women had a strong preference for care in a hospital setting where medical staff are not necessarily involved in their care, but are readily available. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women appear to value some service attributes while preferences differ for others. Policy makers, commissioners and service providers might usefully consider how to extend the availability of services that most women value while offering a choice of options that enable women to access services that best fit their needs and preferences.

Case management approaches to home support for people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Over 35 million people are estimated to be living with dementia in the world and the societal costs are very high. Case management is a widely used and strongly promoted complex intervention for organising and co-ordinating care at the level of the individual, with the aim of providing long-term care for people with dementia in the community as an alternative to early admission to a care home or hospital. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of case management approaches to home support for people with dementia, from the perspective of the different people involved (patients, carers, and staff) compared with other forms of treatment, including 'treatment as usual', standard community treatment and other non-case management interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 31 December 2013: ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group,The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science (including Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Social Science Citation Index), Campbell Collaboration/SORO database and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We updated this search in March 2014 but results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of case management interventions for people with dementia living in the community and their carers. We screened interventions to ensure that they focused on planning and co-ordination of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as required by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently extracted data and made 'Risk of bias' assessments using Cochrane criteria. For continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) between groups along with its confidence interval (95% CI). We applied a fixed- or random-effects model as appropriate. For binary or dichotomous data, we generated the corresponding odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity by the I² statistic. MAIN RESULTS: We include 13 RCTs involving 9615 participants with dementia in the review. Case management interventions in studies varied. We found low to moderate overall risk of bias; 69% of studies were at high risk for performance bias.The case management group were significantly less likely to be institutionalised (admissions to residential or nursing homes) at six months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, n = 5741, 6 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.02) and at 18 months (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.61, n = 363, 4 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.003). However, the effects at 10 - 12 months (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08, n = 5990, 9 RCTs, I² = 48%, P = 0.39) and 24 months (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.03, n = 201, 2 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.94) were uncertain. There was evidence from one trial of a reduction in the number of days per month in a residential home or hospital unit in the case management group at six months (MD -5.80, 95% CI -7.93 to -3.67, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001) and at 12 months (MD -7.70, 95% CI -9.38 to -6.02, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001). One trial reported the length of time until participants were institutionalised at 12 months and the effects were uncertain (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.14, P = 0.14). There was no difference in the number of people admitted to hospital at six (4 RCTs, 439 participants), 12 (5 RCTs, 585 participants) and 18 months (5 RCTs, 613 participants). For mortality at 4 - 6, 12, 18 - 24 and 36 months, and for participants' or carers' quality of life at 4, 6, 12 and 18 months, there were no significant effects. There was some evidence of benefits in carer burden at six months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.01, n = 4601, 4 RCTs, I² = 26%, P = 0.03) but the effects at 12 or 18 months were uncertain. Additionally, some evidence indicated case management was more effective at reducing behaviour disturbance at 18 months (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.07, n = 206, 2 RCTs I² = 0%, P = 0.01) but effects were uncertain at four (2 RCTs), six (4 RCTs) or 12 months (5 RCTs).The case management group showed a small significant improvement in carer depression at 18 months (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.01, n = 2888, 3 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.03). Conversely, the case management group showed greater improvement in carer well-being in a single study at six months (MD -2.20 CI CI -4.14 to -0.26, n = 65, 1 RCT, P = 0.03) but the effects were uncertain at 12 or 18 months. There was some evidence that case management reduced the total cost of services at 12 months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02, n = 5276, 2 RCTs, P = 0.01) and incurred lower dollar expenditure for the total three years (MD= -705.00, 95% CI -1170.31 to -239.69, n = 5170, 1 RCT, P = 0.003). Data on a number of outcomes consistently indicated that the intervention group received significantly more community services. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that case management is beneficial at improving some outcomes at certain time points, both in the person with dementia and in their carer. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the interventions, outcomes measured and time points across the 13 included RCTs. There was some evidence from good-quality studies to suggest that admissions to care homes and overall healthcare costs are reduced in the medium term; however, the results at longer points of follow-up were uncertain. There was not enough evidence to clearly assess whether case management could delay institutionalisation in care homes. There were uncertain results in patient depression, functional abilities and cognition. Further work should be undertaken to investigate what components of case management are associated with improvement in outcomes. Increased consistency in measures of outcome would support future meta-analysis.