COVID-19 vaccine uptake, conspiracy theories, and health literacy among Black individuals in Canada: Racial discrimination, confidence in health, and COVID-19 stress as mediators.

Factors influencing vaccine uptake in Black individuals remain insufficiently documented. Understanding the role of COVID-19 related stress, conspiracy theories, health literacy, racial discrimination experiences, and confidence in health authorities can inform programs to increase vaccination coverage. We sought to analyze these factors and vaccine uptake among Black individuals in Canada. A representative sample of 2002 Black individuals from Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, and Manitoba, aged 14 years or older completed questionnaires assessing vaccine uptake, health literacy, conspiracy theories, racial discrimination experiences, COVID-19-related stress, and confidence in health authorities. Mediation analyses were conducted to assess (1) the effect of health literacy on COVID-19 vaccination uptake through confidence and need, COVID-19 related traumatic stress, and racial discrimination, and (2) the effect of conspiracy beliefs on COVID-19 vaccination uptake through the same factors. Overall, 69.57% (95% confidence interval, 67.55%-71.59%) of the participants were vaccinated and 83.48% of them received two or more doses. Those aged 55 years and older were less likely to be vaccinated, as well as those residing in British Columbia and Manitoba. Mediation models showed that the association between health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine uptake was mediated by confidence in health authorities (B = 0.02, p < 0.001), COVID-19-related stress (B = -0.02, p < 0.001), and racial discrimination (B = -0.01, p = 0.032), but both direct and total effects were nonsignificant. Lastly, conspiracy beliefs were found to have a partial mediation effect through the same mediators (B = 0.02, p < 0.001, B = -0.02, p < 0.001, B = -0.01, p = 0.011, respectively). These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and inform approaches to improve access to vaccinations among Black communities.

COVID-19 vaccine mistrust, health literacy, conspiracy theories, and racial discrimination among a representative ethnically diverse sample in Canada: The vulnerability of Arab, Asian, Black, and Indigenous peoples.

Despite increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections and higher rates of COVID-19-related complications, racialized and Indigenous communities in Canada have lower immunization uptake compared to White individuals. However, there is woeful lack of data on predictors of COVID-19 vaccine mistrust (VM) that accounts for diverse social and cultural contexts within specific racialized and Indigenous communities. Therefore, we sought to characterize COVID-19 VM among Arab, Asian, Black, and Indigenous communities in Canada. An online survey was administered to a nationally representative, ethnically diverse panel of participants in October 2023. Arabic, Asian, Indigenous, and Black respondents were enriched in the sampling panel. Data were collected on demographics, COVID-19 VM, experience of racial discrimination, health literacy, and conspiracy beliefs. We used descriptive and regression analyses to determine the extent and predictors of COVID-19 VM among racialized and Indigenous individuals. All racialized respondents had higher VM score compared to White participants. Among 4220 respondents, we observed highest VM among Black individuals (12.18; ±4.24), followed by Arabic (12.12; ±4.60), Indigenous (11.84; ±5.18), Asian (10.61; ±4.28), and White (9.58; ±5.00) participants. In the hierarchical linear regression analyses, Black participants, women, everyday racial discrimination, and major experience of discrimination were positively associated with COVID-19 VM. Effects of racial discrimination were mediated by addition of conspiracy beliefs to the model. Racialized and Indigenous communities experience varying levels of COVID-19 VM and carry specific predictors and mediators to development of VM. This underscores the intricate interaction between race, gender, discrimination, and VM that need to be considered in future vaccination campaigns.

EUFOREA/EPOS2020 statement on the clinical considerations for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps care.

Following the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) treatment algorithm for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), patients suffering from severe uncontrolled CRSwNP are recommended to receive oral corticosteroids, (revision) sinus surgery, systemic biologicals and/or aspirin treatment after desensitization (ATAD). Given the major differences in indications, outcomes, practical considerations, risks and costs of these key pillars of treatment, there is a growing need to define criteria for each treatment option and list the clinically relevant and major considerations for them. This EUFOREA document therefore provides an expert panel overview of the expected outcomes, specific considerations and (contra)indications of the five major treatment arms of severe uncontrolled CRSwNP: oral corticosteroids, primary and revision sinus surgery, biological treatment and ATAD. This overview of treatment considerations is needed to allow physicians and patients to consider the different options in the context of providing optimal and personalized care for severe uncontrolled CRSwNP. In conclusion, the five major treatment options for severe uncontrolled CRSwNP have intrinsic advantages, specific indications and considerations that are of importance to the patient, the physician and the society. This EUFOREA statement supports the unmet need to define criteria for the indication of every treatment pillar of CRSwNP.

From complexity to clarity: how directed acyclic graphs enhance the study design of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

While frameworks to systematically assess bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) and frameworks on causal inference are well established, they are less frequently integrated beyond the data analysis stages. This paper proposes the use of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) in the design stage of SRMAs. We hypothesize that DAGs created and registered a priori can offer a useful approach to more effective and efficient evidence synthesis. DAGs provide a visual representation of the complex assumed relationships between variables within and beyond individual studies prior to data analysis, facilitating discussion among researchers, guiding data analysis, and may lead to more targeted inclusion criteria or set of data extraction items. We illustrate this argument through both experimental and observational case examples.

Surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults.

BACKGROUND: Growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma is a severe endocrine disease. Surgery is the currently recommended primary therapy for patients with GH-secreting tumours. However, non-surgical therapy (pharmacological therapy and radiation therapy) may be performed as primary therapy or may improve surgical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search of all databases was 1 August 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of more than 12 weeks' duration, reporting on surgical, pharmacological, radiation, and combination interventions for GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in any healthcare setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, screened for inclusion, completed data extraction, and performed a risk of bias assessment. We assessed studies for overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, or in descriptive format when meta-analysis was not possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs that evaluated 445 adults with GH-secreting pituitary adenomas. Four studies reported that they included participants with macroadenomas, one study included a small number of participants with microadenomas. The remaining studies did not specify tumour subtypes. Studies evaluated surgical therapy alone, pharmacological therapy alone, or combination surgical and pharmacological therapy. Methodological quality varied, with many studies providing insufficient information to compare treatment strategies or accurately judge the risk of bias. We identified two main comparisons, surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy alone, and surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy and surgery combined. Surgical therapy alone versus pharmacological therapy alone Three studies with a total of 164 randomised participants investigated this comparison. Only one study narratively described hyperglycaemia as a disease-related complication. All three studies reported adverse events, yet only one study reported numbers separately for the intervention arms; none of the 11 participants were observed to develop gallbladder stones or sludge on ultrasonography following surgery, while five of 11 participants experienced any biliary problems following pharmacological therapy (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was reported to improve similarly in both intervention arms during follow-up. Surgery alone compared to pharmacological therapy alone may slightly increase the biochemical remission rate from 12 weeks to one year after intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain; 36/78 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 15/66 in the pharmacological therapy group showed biochemical remission. The need for additional surgery or non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease was described for single study arms only. Surgical therapy alone versus preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery Five studies with a total of 281 randomised participants provided data for this comparison. Preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may have little to no effect on the disease-related complication of a difficult intubation (requiring postponement of surgery) compared to surgery alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.34; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Surgery alone may have little to no effect on (transient and persistent) adverse events when compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery, but again, the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.03; 5 studies, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning biochemical remission, surgery alone compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may not increase remission rates up until 16 weeks after surgery; 23 of 134 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 51 of 133 in the preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery group showed biochemical remission. Furthermore, the very low-certainty evidence did not suggest benefit or detriment of preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery compared to surgery alone for the outcomes 'requiring additional surgery' (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.06; 1 study, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or 'non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease' (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.28; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies measured health-related quality of life. None of the eight included studies measured disease recurrence or socioeconomic effects. While three of the eight studies reported no deaths to have occurred, one study mentioned that overall, two participants had died within five years of the start of the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas, patient-relevant outcomes, such as disease-related complications, adverse events and disease recurrence were not, or only sparsely, reported. When reported, we found that surgery may have little or no effect on the outcomes compared to the comparator treatment. The current evidence is limited by the small number of included studies, as well as the unclear risk of bias in most studies. The high uncertainty of evidence significantly limits the applicability of our findings to clinical practice. Detailed reporting on the burden of recurrent disease is an important knowledge gap to be evaluated in future research studies. It is also crucial that future studies in this area are designed to report on outcomes by tumour subtype (that is, macroadenomas versus microadenomas) so that future subgroup analyses can be conducted. More rigorous and larger studies, powered to address these research questions, are required to assess the merits of neoadjuvant pharmacological therapy or first-line pharmacotherapy.

Vaccine mistrust among Black individuals in Canada: The major role of health literacy, conspiracy theories, and racial discrimination in the healthcare system.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected Black communities in Canada in terms of infection and mortality rates compared to the general population. Despite these facts, Black communities are among those with the highest level of COVID-19 vaccine mistrust (COVID-19 VM). We collected novel data to analyze the sociodemographic characteristics and factors associated with COVID-19 VM among Black communities in Canada. A survey was conducted among a representative sample of 2002 Black individuals (51.66% women) aged 14-94 years (M = 29.34; SD = 10.13) across Canada. Vaccine mistrust was assessed as the dependent variable and conspiracy theories, health literacy, major racial discrimination in healthcare settings, and sociodemographic characteristics of participants were assessed as independent variables. Those with a history of COVID-19 infection had higher COVID-19 VM score (M = 11.92, SD = 3.88) compared to those with no history of infection (M = 11.25, SD = 3.83), t (1999) = -3.85, p < 0.001. Participants who reported having experienced major racial discrimination in healthcare settings were more likely to report COVID-19 VM (M = 11.92, SD = 4.03) than those who were not (M = 11.36, SD = 3.77), t (1999) = -3.05, p = 0.002. Results also showed significant differences for age, education level, income, marital status, provinces, language, employment status, and religion. The final hierarchical linear regression showed that conspiracy beliefs (B = 0.69, p < 0.001) were positively associated with COVID-19 VM, while health literacy (B = -0.05, p = 0.002) was negatively associated with it. The mediated moderation model showed that conspiracy theories completely mediated the association between racial discrimination and vaccine mistrust (B = 1.71, p < 0.001). This association was also completely moderated by the interaction between racial discrimination and health literacy (B = 0.42, p = 0.008), indicating that despite having a high level of health literacy, those who experienced major racial discrimination in health services developed vaccine mistrust. This first study on COVID-19 VM exclusively among Black individuals in Canada provides data that can significantly impact the development of tools, trainings, strategies, and programs to make the health systems free of racism and increase their confidence in vaccination for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

Prevalence and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness in Canada: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and vaccine unwillingness in Canada. Eleven databases were searched in March 2022. The pooled prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness was estimated. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed. Out of 667 studies screened, 86 full-text articles were reviewed, and 30 were included in the systematic review. Twenty-four articles were included in the meta-analysis; 12 for the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (42.3% [95% CI, 33.7%-51.0%]) and 12 for vaccine unwillingness (20.1% [95% CI, 15.2%-24.9%]). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in females (18.3% [95% CI, 12.4%-24.2%]) than males (13.9% [95% CI, 9.0%-18.8%]), and in rural (16.3% [95% CI, 12.9%-19.7%]) versus urban areas (14.1% [95%CI, 9.9%-18.3%]). Vaccine unwillingness was higher in females (19.9% [95% CI, 11.0%-24.8%]) compared with males (13.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-19.2%]), non-White individuals (21.7% [95% CI, 16.2%-27.3%]) than White individuals (14.8% [95% CI, 11.0%-18.5%]), and secondary or less (24.2% [95% CI, 18.8%-29.6%]) versus postsecondary education (15.9% [95% CI, 11.6%-20.2%]). Factors related to racial disparities, gender, education level, and age are discussed.

Post-operative surveillance for somatotroph, lactotroph and non-functional pituitary adenomas after curative resection: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Pituitary tumors are the third most common brain tumor and yet there is no standardization of the surveillance schedule and assessment modalities after transsphenoidal surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: OVID, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically screened from database inception to March 5, 2020. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to capture studies examining detection of pituitary adenoma recurrence in patients 18 years of age and older following surgical resection with curative intent. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 7936 abstracts were screened, with 812 articles reviewed in full text and 77 meeting inclusion criteria for data extraction. A pooled analysis demonstrated recurrence rates at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years for non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPA; N = 3533 participants) were 1%, 17%, and 33%, for prolactin-secreting adenomas (PSPA; N = 1295) were 6%, 21%, and 28%, and for growth-hormone pituitary adenomas (GHPA; N = 1257) were 3%, 8% and 13%, respectively. Rates of recurrence prior to 1 year were 0% for NFPA, 1-2% for PSPA and 0% for GHPA. The mean time to disease recurrence for NFPA, PSPA and GHPA were 4.25, 2.52 and 4.18 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review of the literature quantified the recurrence rates for commonly observed pituitary adenomas after transsphenoidal surgical resection with curative intent. Our findings suggest that surveillance within 1 year may be of low yield. Further clinical trials and cohort studies investigating cost-effectiveness of surveillance schedules and impact on quality of life of patients under surveillance will provide further insight to optimize follow-up.

Preoperative Evaluation of Thyroid Cancer: A Review of Current Best Practices.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of thyroid cancer has significantly increased in recent decades. Although most thyroid cancers are small and carry an excellent prognosis, a subset of patients present with advanced thyroid cancer, which is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. The management of thyroid cancer requires a thoughtful individualized approach to optimize oncologic outcomes and minimize morbidity associated with treatment. Because endocrinologists usually play a key role in the initial diagnosis and evaluation of thyroid cancers, a thorough understanding of the critical components of the preoperative evaluation facilitates the development of a timely and comprehensive management plan. The following review outlines considerations in the preoperative evaluation of patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: A clinical review based on current literature was generated by a multidisciplinary author panel. RESULTS: A review of considerations in the preoperative evaluation of thyroid cancer is provided. The topic areas include initial clinical evaluation, imaging modalities, cytologic evaluation, and the evolving role of mutational testing. Special considerations in the management of advanced thyroid cancer are discussed. CONCLUSION: Thorough and thoughtful preoperative evaluation is critical for formulating an appropriate treatment strategy in the management of thyroid cancer.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Cost-effectiveness of direct surgery versus preoperative octreotide therapy for growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of preoperative octreotide therapy followed by surgery versus the standard treatment modality for growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas, direct surgery (that is, surgery without preoperative treatment) from a public third-party payer perspective. METHODS: We developed an individual-level state-transition microsimulation model to simulate costs and outcomes associated with preoperative octreotide therapy followed by surgery and direct surgery for patients with growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were estimated from recent published data and discounted by 3% annually over a lifetime time horizon. Model outcomes included lifetime costs [2020 United States (US) Dollars], quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, direct surgery was found to be the dominant strategy as it yielded lower costs and greater health effects (QALYs) compared to preoperative octreotide strategy in the second-order Monte Carlo microsimulation. The ICER was most sensitive to probability of remission following primary therapy and duration of preoperative octreotide therapy. Accounting for joint parameter uncertainty, direct surgery had a higher probability of demonstrating a cost-effective profile compared to preoperative octreotide treatment at 77% compared to 23%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using standard benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in the US ($100,000/QALY), preoperative octreotide therapy followed by surgery may not be cost-effective compared to direct surgery for patients with growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas but the result is highly sensitive to initial treatment failure and duration of preoperative treatment.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Salivary testing of COVID-19: evaluation of serological testing following positive salivary results.

BACKGROUND: Salivary detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been proposed as an alternative to nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing. Our group previously published a study demonstrating that both testing methods identified SARS-CoV-2 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection methodology. We therefore conducted a follow-up study using antibody testing to evaluate the accuracy of saliva versus swabs for COVID-19 detection and the durability of antibody response. METHODS: Venous blood samples were collected from consenting participants and the presence of serum antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated on a large, automated immunoassay platform by the Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 qualitative assay (Roche Diagnostics, Laval Quebec). Individuals with a serum antibody cut-off index (COI) ≥ 1.0 were considered positive. RESULTS: In asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients with a previously positive standard swab and/or saliva SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test, 42 demonstrated antibodies with 13 patients positive by swab alone, and 8 patients positive by saliva alone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their status as 'current standard' for COVID-19 testing, these findings highlight limitations of PCR-based tests.

Perioperative nasal and paranasal sinus considerations in transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary disease.

Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery has emerged as the treatment modality of choice for a range of skull base lesions, particularly pituitary adenomas. However, navigation and manipulation of the nasal corridor and paranasal sinuses requires that surgeons are aware of effective techniques to maximize patient outcomes and avoid sinonasal morbidity postoperatively. This paper is a narrative review aimed to provide an updated and consolidated report on the perioperative management of the nasal corridor and paranasal sinuses in the setting of endoscopic skull base surgery for pituitary disease. Anatomic variants and common surgical techniques are discussed. Post-operative complications are evaluated in detail. Understanding the structural implications of the endonasal approach to the sphenoid is crucial to optimization of the surgical outcomes. We propose guidelines for perioperative management of endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery for pituitary diseases. Standardized treatment algorithms can improve patient satisfaction, and increase the comparability and the quality of reported information across research studies.