Incidence and outcomes of critical illness in indigenous peoples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities and racism across the continuum of health services. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence and outcomes of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to October 2022). Observational studies, case series of > 100 patients, clinical trial arms, and grey literature reports of Indigenous adults were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and appraised research quality from an Indigenous perspective using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Assessment Tool. ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were compared using risk ratios and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. ICU admission was synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (Australia and/or New Zealand [n = 12] and Canada [n = 3]) were included. Risk of bias was low in 10 studies and moderate in 5, and included studies had minimal incorporation of Indigenous perspectives or consultation. There was no difference in ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous (RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.34, I2 = 87%). We observed a shorter ICU length of stay among Indigenous (MD - 0.25; 95%CI, - 0.49 to - 0.00; I2 = 95%) and a higher use for IMV among non-Indigenous (RR 1.10; 95%CI, 1.06 to 1.15; I2 = 81%). CONCLUSION: Research on Indigenous Peoples experience with critical care is poorly characterized and has rarely included Indigenous perspectives. ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations was similar, while there was a shorter ICU length of stay and less mechanical ventilation use among Indigenous patients. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42021254661; Registered: 12 June, 2021.

Clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: To systematically review the literature on clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using Mantel-Haenszel (random effects model) relative risks (VBAC rate) and risk differences (uterine rupture and dehiscence). Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies (six trials and 23 cohorts) examined different clinical interventions affecting rates of vaginal deliveries among women with a prior cesarean delivery (CD). Methodological quality was good overall for the trials; however, concerns among the cohort studies regarding selection bias, comparability of groups and outcome measurement resulted in higher risk of bias. Interventions for labor induction, with or without cervical ripening, included pharmacologic (oxytocin, prostaglandins, misoprostol, mifepristone, epidural analgesia), non-pharmacologic (membrane sweep, amniotomy, balloon devices), and combined (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic). Single studies with small sample sizes and event rates contributed to most comparisons, with no clear differences between groups on rates of VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review evaluated clinical interventions directed at increasing the rate of vaginal delivery among women with a prior CD and found low to very low certainty in the body of evidence for cervical ripening and/or labor induction techniques. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to inform optimal clinical interventions among women attempting a trial of labor after a prior CD.

Adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean rates: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rates of cesarean deliveries have been increasing, and contributes to the rising number of elective cesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies with associated maternal and neonatal risks. Multiple guidelines recommend that women be offered a trial of labor after a cesarean (TOLAC). The objective of the study is to systematically review the literature on adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any adjunct clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting changes in TOLAC or VBAC rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies of overall moderate to good methodological quality examined adjunct clinical interventions affecting TOLAC and/or VBAC rates: system-level interventions (three studies), provider-level interventions (three studies), guidelines or information for providers (seven studies), provider characteristics (four studies), and patient-level interventions (six studies). Provider-level interventions (opinion leader education, laborist, and obstetrician second opinion for cesarean sections) and provider characteristics (midwifery antenatal care, physicians on night float call schedules, and deliveries by family physicians) were associated with increased rates of VBAC. Few studies employing heterogeneous designs, sample sizes, interventions and comparators limited confidence in the effects. Studies of system-level and patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for providers reported mixed findings. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence indicates some provider-level interventions and provider characteristics may increase rates of attempted and successful TOLACs and/or VBACs, whereas other adjunct clinical interventions such as system-level interventions, patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for healthcare providers show mixed findings.

Social Media for the Dissemination of Cochrane Child Health Evidence: Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers value ready access to reliable synthesized information to support point-of-care decision making. Web-based communities, facilitated by the adoption of social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, are increasingly being used for knowledge dissemination, bridging the gap between knowledge generation and synthesis and knowledge implementation. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to implement and evaluate a structured social media strategy, using multiple platforms, to disseminate Cochrane Child Health evidence to health care providers caring for children. METHODS: Our social media strategy had three components: daily "tweets" using the Cochrane Child Health Twitter account, weekly WordPress blog posts, and a monthly journal club on Twitter ("tweet chat"). Each tweet, blog, and journal club shared Cochrane evidence on a child health topic. We evaluated the strategy through (1) Twitter and blog site analytics, (2) traceable link (Bitly) statistics, (3) Altmetric.com scores for promoted evidence, and (4) participant feedback. We also tracked the resources required to write the blog, tweet content, and manage the strategy. RESULTS: The 22-week social media strategy ran between November 2014 and April 2015. We created 25 blog posts, sent 585 tweets, and hosted 3 tweet chats. Monthly blog visits and views and Twitter account followers increased over time. During the study period, the blog received 2555 visitors and 3967 page views from a geographically diverse audience of health care providers, academics, and health care organizations. In total, 183 traceable Bitly links received 3463 clicks, and the Twitter account gained 469 new followers. The most visited and viewed blog posts included gastrointestinal topics (lactose avoidance), research on respiratory conditions (honey for cough and treatments for asthma), and maternal newborn care (skin-to-skin contact). On Twitter, popular topics were related to public health (vaccination) and pain management. We collected Altmetric.com scores for 61 studies promoted during the study period and recorded an average increase of 11 points. Research staff (n=3) contributed approximately 433 hours to promotion activities and planning (6.5 hours each per week) to implement the social media strategy, and study investigators reviewed all content (blog posts and tweets). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence on the use of a coordinated social media strategy for the dissemination of evidence to professionals providing health services to children and youth. The results and lessons learned from our study provide guidance for future knowledge dissemination activities using social media tools.

An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Harvest plots are used to graphically display evidence from complex and diverse studies or results. Overviews of reviews bring together evidence from two or more systematic reviews. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of using harvest plots to depict complex results of overviews of reviews. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 279 members of Cochrane Child Health to determine their preferences for graphical display of data, and their understanding of data presented in the form of harvest plots. Preferences were rated on a scale of 0-100 (100 most preferred) and tabulated using descriptive statistics. Knowledge and accuracy were assessed by tabulating the number of correctly answered questions for harvest plots and traditional data summary tables; t-tests were used to compare responses between formats. RESULTS: 53 individuals from 7 countries completed the survey (19%): 60% were females; the majority had an MD (38%), PhD (47%), or equivalent. Respondents had published a median of 3 systematic reviews (inter-quartile range 1 to 8). There were few differences between harvest plots and tables in terms of being: well-suited to summarize and display results from meta-analysis (52 vs. 56); easy to understand (53 vs. 51); and, intuitive (49 vs. 44). Harvest plots were considered more aesthetically pleasing (56 vs. 44, p = 0.03). 40% felt the harvest plots could be used in conjunction with tables to display results from meta-analyses; additionally, 45% felt the harvest plots could be used with some improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in percentage of knowledge questions answered correctly for harvest plots compared with tables. When considering both types of data display, 21% of knowledge questions were answered incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: Neither harvest plots nor standard summary tables were ranked highly in terms of being easy to understand or intuitive, reflecting that neither format is ideal to summarize the results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews. Responses to knowledge questions showed some misinterpretation of results of meta-analyses. Reviewers should ensure that messages are clearly articulated and summarized in the text to avoid misinterpretation.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.

BACKGROUND: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care. METHODS: For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I2 = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I2 = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I2 = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I2 = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated. CONCLUSION: An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragilityfracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Risk factors and preventive interventions for post Covid-19 condition: systematic review.

This systematic review examined pre-existing and clinical risk factors for post Covid-19 condition (≥12 weeks after onset), and interventions during acute and post-acute phases of illness that could potentially prevent post Covid-19 condition. The review focuses on studies collecting data during the early phases of the pandemic and prior to the emergence of variants of concern and widespread vaccination. We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, and data extraction and risk of bias assessments were verified. Meta-analysis was performed when suitable and we assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included 31 studies. We found small-to-moderate associations (e.g. adjusted odds ratios 1.5 to <2.0) between female sex and higher non-recovery, fatigue, and dyspnea (moderate certainty). Severe or critical acute-phase Covid-19 severity (versus not) has probably (moderate certainty) a large association (adjusted ratio ≥2.0) with increased cognitive impairment, a small-to-moderate association with more non-recovery, and a little-to-no association with dyspnea. There may be (low certainty) large associations between hospitalization and increased non-recovery, increased dyspnea, and reduced return to work. Other outcomes had low certainty of small-to-moderate or little-to-no association or very low certainty. Several potential preventive interventions were examined, but effects are very uncertain. Guidelines in relation to surveillance, screening, and other services such as access to sickness and disability benefits, might need to focus on females and those with previously severe Covid-19 illness. Continuous assessment of emerging evidence, especially on whether different variants and vaccination impact outcomes, will be important. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021270354.

Incidence, risk factors, natural history, and hypothesised mechanisms of myocarditis and pericarditis following covid-19 vaccination: living evidence syntheses and review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on incidence rates and risk factors for myocarditis and pericarditis after use of mRNA vaccination against covid-19, clinical presentation, short term and longer term outcomes of cases, and proposed mechanisms. DESIGN: Living evidence syntheses and review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 6 October 2020 to 10 January 2022; reference lists and grey literature (to 13 January 2021). One reviewer completed screening and another verified 50% of exclusions, using a machine learning program to prioritise records. A second reviewer verified all exclusions at full text, extracted data, and (for incidence and risk factors) risk of bias assessments using modified Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Team consensus determined certainty of evidence ratings for incidence and risk factors using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Large (>10 000 participants) or population based or multisite observational studies and surveillance data (incidence and risk factors) reporting on confirmed myocarditis or pericarditis after covid-19 mRNA vaccination; case series (n≥5, presentation, short term clinical course and longer term outcomes); opinions, letters, reviews, and primary studies focused on describing or supporting hypothesised mechanisms. RESULTS: 46 studies were included (14 on incidence, seven on risk factors, 11 on characteristics and short term course, three on longer term outcomes, and 21 on mechanisms). Incidence of myocarditis after mRNA vaccines was highest in male adolescents and male young adults (age 12-17 years, range 50-139 cases per million (low certainty); 18-29 years, 28-147 per million (moderate certainty)). For girls and boys aged 5-11 years and women aged 18-29 years, incidence of myocarditis after vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) could be fewer than 20 cases per million (low certainty). Incidence after a third dose of an mRNA vaccine had very low certainty evidence. For individuals of 18-29 years, incidence of myocarditis is probably higher after vaccination with mRNA-1273 (Moderna) compared with Pfizer (moderate certainty). Among individuals aged 12-17, 18-29, or 18-39 years, incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis after dose two of an mRNA vaccine for covid-19 might be lower when administered ≥31 days compared with ≤30 days after dose one (low certainty). Data specific to men aged 18-29 years indicated that the dosing interval might need to increase to ≥56 days to substantially drop myocarditis or pericarditis incidence. For clinical course and short term outcomes, only one small case series (n=8) was found for 5-11 year olds. In adolescents and adults, most (>90%) myocarditis cases involved men of a median 20-30 years of age and with symptom onset two to four days after a second dose (71-100%). Most people were admitted to hospital (≥84%) for a short duration (two to four days). For pericarditis, data were limited but more variation than myocarditis has been reported in patient age, sex, onset timing, and rate of admission to hospital. Three case series with longer term (3 months; n=38) follow-up suggested persistent echocardiogram abnormalities, as well as ongoing symptoms or a need for drug treatments or restriction from activities in >50% of patients. Sixteen hypothesised mechanisms were described, with little direct supporting or refuting evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that adolescent and young adult men are at the highest risk of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination. Use of a Pfizer vaccine over a Moderna vaccine and waiting for more than 30 days between doses might be preferred for this population. Incidence of myocarditis in children aged 5-11 years is very rare but certainty was low. Data for clinical risk factors were very limited. A clinical course of mRNA related myocarditis appeared to be benign, although longer term follow-up data were limited. Prospective studies with appropriate testing (eg, biopsy and tissue morphology) will enhance understanding of mechanism.

Incidence and outcomes of critical illness in Indigenous Peoples: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities across the continuum of health services. Improvements for Indigenous patients and their families during vulnerable experiences with the healthcare system may have a significant impact on the patient experience and outcomes. Improved understanding of the occurrence of critical illness in Indigenous Peoples and their use of critical care services, as a strategic priority, may aid in the development of initiatives for improving health equity. A global focus was selected to learn from Indigenous populations' experiences with critical care, as the understanding of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples in Canada is not well understood. This protocol outlines a systematic review focused on describing the incidence of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched. Relevant Canadian sites for gray literature (National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, First Nations Health Authority, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Indigenous Peoples' Health, National Association of Friendship Centres, the Alberta First Nations Information Governance Centre, Métis Nation of Alberta) will also be searched. We will include studies of adults (≥18 years) either without critical illness (i.e., general population) or with critical illness (i.e., admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU)). The exposure of interest will be Indigenous identity. Primary outcome measures are ICU admission and ICU mortality. Because heterogeneity in populations, comparisons, and outcome measures is anticipated, it is likely that the findings will be summarized using a narrative synthesis. A meta-analysis will be performed if there is sufficient evidence on one or more outcomes of interest. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a better understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. The knowledge generated will be applied to a broader program of work designed to create ethical space to co-design, implement, and evaluate a culturally competent, safe, and innovative model for critical care services for Indigenous People. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021254661.

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.

BACKGROUND: We conducted systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of screening compared with no screening or alternative screening approaches for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) in non-pregnant sexually active individuals, and on the relative importance patients' place on the relevant outcomes. Findings will inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. METHODS: We searched five databases (to January 24, 2020), trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists for English and French literature published since 1996. Screening, study selection, and risk of bias assessments were independently undertaken by two reviewers, with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. The Task Force and content experts provided input on determining thresholds for important effect sizes and on interpretation of findings. RESULTS: Of 41 included studies, 17 and 11 reported on benefits and harms of screening, respectively, and 14 reported on patient preferences. Universal screening for CT in general populations 16 to 29 years of age, using population-based or opportunistic approaches achieving low screening rates, may make little-to-no difference for a female's risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) (2 RCTs, n=141,362; 0.3 more in 1000 [7.6 fewer to 11 more]) or ectopic pregnancy (1 RCT, n=15,459; 0.20 more per 1000 [2.2 fewer to 3.9 more]). It may also not make a difference for CT transmission (3 RCTs, n=41,709; 3 fewer per 1000 [11.5 fewer to 6.9 more]). However, benefits may be achieved for reducing PID if screening rates are increased (2 trials, n=30,652; 5.7 fewer per 1000 [10.8 fewer to 1.1 more]), and for reducing CT and NG transmission when intensely screening high-prevalence female populations (2 trials, n=6127; 34.3 fewer per 1000 [4 to 58 fewer]; NNS 29 [17 to 250]). Evidence on infertility in females from CT screening and on transmission of NG in males and both sexes from screening for CT and NG is very uncertain. No evidence was found for cervicitis, chronic pelvic pain, or infertility in males from CT screening, or on any clinical outcomes from NG screening. Undergoing screening, or having a diagnosis of CT, may cause a small-to-moderate number of people to experience some degree of harm, mainly due to feelings of stigmatization and anxiety about future infertility risk. The number of individuals affected in the entire screening-eligible population is likely smaller. Screening may make little-to-no difference for general anxiety, self-esteem, or relationship break-up. Evidence on transmission from studies comparing home versus clinic screening is very uncertain. Four studies on patient preferences found that although utility values for the different consequences of CT and NG infections are probably quite similar, when considering the duration of the health state experiences, infertility and chronic pelvic pain are probably valued much more than PID, ectopic pregnancy, and cervicitis. How patients weigh the potential benefits versus harms of screening is very uncertain (1 survey, 10 qualitative studies); risks to reproductive health and transmission appear to be more important than the (often transient) psychosocial harms. DISCUSSION: Most of the evidence on screening for CT and/or NG offers low or very low certainty about the benefits and harms. Indirectness from use of comparison groups receiving some screening, incomplete outcome ascertainment, and use of outreach settings was a major contributor to uncertainty. Patient preferences indicate that the potential benefits from screening appear to outweigh the possible harms. Direct evidence about which screening strategies and intervals to use, which age to start and stop screening, and whether screening males in addition to females is necessary to prevent clinical outcomes is scarce, and further research in these areas would be informative. Apart from the evidence in this review, information on factors related to equity, acceptability, implementation, cost/resources, and feasibility will support recommendations made by the Task Force. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733 .

Burden of illness in infants and young children hospitalized for respiratory syncytial virus: A rapid review.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections are common among young children and represent a significant burden to patients, their families and the Canadian health system. Here we conduct a rapid review of the burden of RSV illness in children 24 months of age or younger. Four databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 to 2018), grey literature and reference lists were reviewed for studies on the following: children with or without a risk factor, without prophylaxis and with lab-confirmed RSV infection. Of 29 studies identified, 10 provided within-study comparisons and few examined clinical conditions besides prematurity. For infants of 33-36 weeks gestation (wGA) versus term infants, there was low-to-moderate certainty evidence for an increase in RSV-hospitalizations (n=599,535 infants; RR 2.05 [95% CI 1.89-2.22]; 1.3 more per 100 [1.1-1.5 more]) and hospital length of stay (n=7,597 infants; mean difference 1.00 day [95% CI 0.88-1.12]). There was low-to-moderate certainty evidence of little-to-no difference for infants born at 29-32 versus 33-36 wGA for hospitalization (n=12,812 infants; RR 1.20 [95% CI 0.92-1.56]). There was low certainty evidence of increased mechanical ventilation for hospitalized infants born at 29-32 versus 33-35 wGA (n=212 infants; RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.94-2.65). Among infants born at 32-35 wGA, hospitalization for RSV in infancy may be associated with increased wheeze and asthma-medication use across six-year follow-up (RR range 1.3-1.7). Children with versus without Down syndrome may have increased hospital length of stay (n=7,206 children; mean difference 3.00 days, 95% CI 1.95-4.05; low certainty). Evidence for other within-study comparisons was of very low certainty. In summary, prematurity is associated with greater risk for RSV-hospitalization and longer hospital length of stay, and Down syndrome may be associated with longer hospital stay for RSV. Respiratory syncytial virus-hospitalization in infancy may be associated with greater wheeze and asthma-medication use in early childhood. Lack of a comparison group was a major limitation for many studies.

Risk factors for severity of COVID-19: a rapid review to inform vaccine prioritisation in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid review to determine the magnitude of association between potential risk factors and severity of COVID-19, to inform vaccine prioritisation in Canada. SETTING: Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL, Epistemonikos COVID-19 in L·OVE Platform, McMaster COVID-19 Evidence Alerts and websites were searched to 15 June 2020. Eligible studies were conducted in high-income countries and used multivariate analyses. PARTICIPANTS: After piloting, screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by a single experienced reviewer. Of 3740 unique records identified, 34 were included that reported on median 596 (range 44-418 794) participants, aged 42-84 years. 19/34 (56%) were good quality. OUTCOMES: Hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, length of stay in hospital or intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, severe disease, mortality. RESULTS: Authors synthesised findings narratively and appraised the certainty of the evidence for each risk factor-outcome association. There was low or moderate certainty evidence for a large (≥2-fold) magnitude of association between hospitalisation in people with COVID-19, and: obesity class III, heart failure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dementia, age >45 years, male gender, black race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic white), homelessness and low income. Age >60 and >70 years may be associated with large increases in mechanical ventilation and severe disease, respectively. For mortality, a large magnitude of association may exist with liver disease, Bangladeshi ethnicity (vs British white), age >45 years, age >80 years (vs 65-69 years) and male gender among 20-64 years (but not older). Associations with hospitalisation and mortality may be very large (≥5-fold) for those aged ≥60 years. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age (especially >60 years) may be the most important risk factor for severe outcomes. High-quality primary research accounting for multiple confounders is needed to better understand the magnitude of associations for severity of COVID-19 with several other factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198001.

Digital Technology Distraction for Acute Pain in Children: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Digital distraction is being integrated into pediatric pain care, but its efficacy is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of digital technology distraction on pain and distress in children experiencing acutely painful conditions or procedures. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Ei Compendex, Web of Science, and gray literature sources. STUDY SELECTION: Quantitative studies of digital technology distraction for acutely painful conditions or procedures in children. DATA EXTRACTION: Performed by 1 reviewer with verification. Outcomes were child pain and distress. RESULTS: There were 106 studies (n = 7820) that reported on digital technology distractors (eg, virtual reality and video games) used during common procedures (eg, venipuncture, dental, and burn treatments). No studies reported on painful conditions. For painful procedures, digital distraction resulted in a modest but clinically important reduction in self-reported pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.66 to -0.29; 46 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; n = 3200), observer-reported pain (SMD -0.68; 95% CI -0.91 to -0.45; 17 RCTs; n = 1199), behavioral pain (SMD -0.57; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.19; 19 RCTs; n = 1173), self-reported distress (SMD -0.49; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27; 19 RCTs; n = 1818), observer-reported distress (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.17; 10 RCTs; n = 826), and behavioral distress (SMD -0.35; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.12; 17 RCTs; n = 1264) compared with usual care. LIMITATIONS: Few studies directly compared different distractors or provided subgroup data to inform applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Digital distraction provides modest pain and distress reduction for children undergoing painful procedures; its superiority over nondigital distractors is not established. Context, preferences, and availability should inform the choice of distractor.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy: systematic reviews of screening and treatment effectiveness and patient preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review screening and treatment effectiveness, and patient preferences, to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy. DESIGN: We searched multiple databases (inception to September 2017) and grey literature sources for studies on screening effectiveness and patient preferences. For treatment with antibiotics, we searched three databases for systematic reviews and obtained search results of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register to update a Cochrane review. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and evaluation of the quality for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was completed independently by two reviewers with consensus. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate as were analyses based on planned subgroup variables. OUTCOMES: For screening and treatment effectiveness: maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal and neonatal sepsis, pyelonephritis, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birth weight and serious adverse events. Valuation of outcomes for patient preferences. RESULTS: Four studies compared outcomes before and after the introduction of a screening programme or between different screening programmes. All evidence on screening effectiveness was considered very low quality. Women have conflicting opinions about antibiotic use during pregnancy. Fifteen trials compared antibiotic treatment with no treatment or placebo in women with confirmed bacteriuria. Low-quality evidence found that treatment lowered rates of pyelonephritis (12 trials, relative risk [RR] 0.24; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.42; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 17.6%; number needed to treat [NNT] 6, 95% CI 5 to 7) and low birth weight (seven trials, RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; ARR 4.4%; NNT 23, 95% CI 15 to 85). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic treatment for women having significant bacteriuria likely reduces the incidence of pyelonephritis and low birth weight, but we are uncertain about the magnitude of the effect and about the extent to which we can apply these results to asymptomatic populations and screening programmes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016045263.

Safety of corticosteroids in young children with acute respiratory conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Adverse events (AEs) associated with short-term corticosteroid use for respiratory conditions in young children. DESIGN: Systematic review of primary studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase and regulatory agencies were searched September 2014; search was updated in 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Children <6 years with acute respiratory condition, given inhaled (high-dose) or systemic corticosteroids up to 14 days. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: One reviewer extracted with another reviewer verifying data. Study selection and methodological quality (McHarm scale) involved duplicate independent reviews. We extracted AEs reported by study authors and used a categorisation model by organ systems. Meta-analyses used Peto ORs (pORs) and DerSimonian Laird inverse variance method utilising Mantel-Haenszel Q statistic, with 95% CI. Subgroup analyses were conducted for respiratory condition and dose. RESULTS: Eighty-five studies (11 505 children) were included; 68 were randomised trials. Methodological quality was poor overall due to lack of assessment and inadequate reporting of AEs. Meta-analysis (six studies; n=1373) found fewer cases of vomiting comparing oral dexamethasone with prednisone (pOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; I2=0%). The mean difference in change-from-baseline height after one year between inhaled corticosteroid and placebo was 0.10 cm (two studies, n=268; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.67). Results from five studies with heterogeneous interventions, comparators and measurements were not pooled; one study found a smaller mean change in height z-score with recurrent high-dose inhaled fluticasone over one year. No significant differences were found comparing systemic or inhaled corticosteroid with placebo, or between corticosteroids, for other AEs; CIs around estimates were often wide, due to small samples and few events. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that short-term high-dose inhaled or systemic corticosteroids use is not associated with an increase in AEs across organ systems. Uncertainties remain, particularly for recurrent use and growth outcomes, due to low study quality, poor reporting and imprecision.

Impact of fatigue and insufficient sleep on physician and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: For physicians in independent practice, we synthesised evidence on the (1) impacts of insufficient sleep and fatigue on health and performance, and patient safety and (2) effectiveness of interventions targeting insufficient sleep and fatigue. DESIGN: We systematically reviewed online literature. After piloting, one reviewer selected studies by title and abstract; full texts were then reviewed in duplicate. One reviewer extracted data; another verified a random 10% sample. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias. We pooled findings via meta-analysis when appropriate or narratively. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed for published studies in April 2016; Medline was updated in November 2017. We searched Embase for conference proceedings, and hand-searched meeting abstracts, association and foundation websites. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: English or French language primary research studies published from 2000 to 2017 examining the effect of fatigue-related or sleep-related exposures or interventions on any outcome among physicians in independent practice and their patients. RESULTS: Of 16 154 records identified, we included 47 quantitative studies of variable quality. 28 studies showed associations between fatigue or insufficient sleep and physician health and well-being outcomes. 21 studies showed no association with surgical performance, and mixed findings for psychomotor performance, work performance and medical errors. We pooled data from six cohort studies for patient outcomes. For sleep deprived versus non-sleep deprived surgeons, we found no difference in patient mortality (n=60 436, relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.15, I2=0% (p=0.87)) nor postoperative complications (n=60 201, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03, I2=0% (p=0.45)). The findings for intraoperative complications and length of stay were considerably heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue and insufficient sleep may be associated with negative physician health outcomes. Current evidence is inadequate to inform practice recommendations.

Publication of reviews synthesizing child health evidence (PORSCHE): a survey of authors to identify factors associated with publication in Cochrane and non-Cochrane sources.

BACKGROUND: Cochrane Child Health maintains a register of child-relevant Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a comprehensive source of high-quality evidence. However, a large number of SRs are published outside of The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane), impacting the comprehensiveness of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We surveyed authors who published child-relevant SRs with Cochrane and elsewhere in the medical literature to (1) understand their experiences in preparing and publishing SRs and (2) identify factors influencing choice of publication venue. METHODS: We identified SRs published in the CDSR for the most recent complete year prior to our study (2013; n = 145). We searched the medical literature and randomly selected the same number of SRs published the same year. We developed an internet-based survey and contacted the corresponding author of each review via email. Data were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative analysis elicited common themes from open-ended questions. RESULTS: Seventy-six (26 %) responded: 41 % Cochrane, 42 % non-Cochrane, and 17 % published in both venues. Among respondents who published their SR in both venues (n = 13), 46 % found it easier to publish in a non-Cochrane journal, 15 % easier with Cochrane, and 31 % similar. Main reasons for conducting SRs with Cochrane (n = 44) were Cochrane's positive reputation (82 %) and good impact factor (66 %). Among respondents who published their SR in a non-Cochrane journal (n = 32), most frequent reasons for not conducting their SR with Cochrane were time required to follow Cochrane processes (25 %), lack of knowledge about how to conduct an SR with Cochrane (19 %), administrative processes (16 %), and perception that non-Cochrane journals yielded more interest (16 %). Among respondents who published their SR in a non-Cochrane journal (n = 32), 78 % did not register their review and 22 % did not prepare a protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Key reasons for publishing in Cochrane are its positive reputation and impact factor. Reasons for publishing in non-Cochrane sources include lack of familiarity or challenges with the Cochrane processes and desire to publish in a source more directly relevant to the topic of interest. End users looking for evidence in the form of SRs need to be aware that there is a vast number of SRs published across the medical literature. Efforts to optimize the identification of SRs in non-Cochrane sources (e.g., through effective labeling or protocol/review registration) and their content will help end users find the necessary synthesized evidence to support clinical practice.

Adverse events related to emergency department care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding the prevalence, preventability, severity and types of adverse events (AE) in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: We systematically searched major bibliographic databases, relevant journals and conference proceedings, and completed reference reviews of primary articles. Observational studies (cohort and case-control), quasi-experimental (e.g. before/after) studies and randomized controlled trials, were considered for inclusion if they examined a broad demographic group reflecting a significant proportion of ED patients and described the proportion of AE. Studies conducted outside of the ED setting, those examining only a subpopulation of patients (e.g. a specific entrance complaint or receiving a specific intervention), or examining only adverse drug events, were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility, completed data extraction, and assessed study quality with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Our search identified 11,624 citations. Ten articles, representing eight observational studies, were included. Methodological quality was low to moderate with weaknesses in study group comparability, follow-up, and outcome ascertainment and reporting. There was substantial variation in the proportion of patients with AE related to ED care, ranging from 0.16% (n = 9308) to 6.0% (n = 399). Similarly, the reported preventability of AE ranged from 36% (n = 250) to 71% (n = 24). The most common types of events were related to management (3 studies), diagnosis (2 studies) and medication (2 studies). CONCLUSIONS: The variability in findings and lack of high quality studies on AE in the high risk ED setting highlights the need for research in this area. Further studies with rigorous, standardized outcome assessment and reporting are required.

Overview of reviews in child health: evidence synthesis and the knowledge base for a specific population.

BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews are an evolving form of evidence synthesis. The Cochrane Child Health Field has been producing overviews since 2006, during which time the methods that have been used have changed, both due to the development of guidance within The Cochrane Collaboration and to the decisions made by individual author teams. This paper studies the first 29 overviews published in EBCH. OBJECTIVES: To describe some aspects of the approaches taken in EBCH overviews to producing evidence syntheses relevant to the healthcare needs of children; to highlight the contribution that overviews can make to the knowledge base for treatment for a particular population. METHODS: Data was extracted on: whether the overview included systematic review (SR) data only, or also data from individual trials not present in the included SRs; name(s) of the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) that prepared the included SRs; topics of the overviews as compared to the topics of the included reviews; age-subgroup analyses presented in the overviews. RESULTS: In 23 overviews, all published in 2012, the authors included trial data as well as SR data; two overviews addressed conditions not explicitly addressed by the included reviews; three overviews included pre-specified age-subgroup analyses. DISCUSSION: The aim of clinical relevance has been achieved by means such as: drawing from reviews produced by multiple CRGs; using SR evidence to explore clinically relevant topics that may not match exactly with the topics covered by the SRs; ensuring that the evidence in overviews is as up to date as possible by redoing searches and including trials not incorporated in the included SRs; and, where permitted by the data, using age-subgroup analyses to present the data in a way which matches the stages of childhood development. CONCLUSION: Overview authors are dependent on the nature of the data and methods reported in the included SRs. This suggests a need for further study about how SRs could be conducted in order to facilitate the conduct of overviews.