Effects of preoperative magnetic resonance image on survival rates and surgical planning in breast cancer conservative surgery: randomized controlled trial (BREAST-MRI trial).

BACKGROUND: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has high sensitivity in detecting invasive neoplasms. Controversy remains about its impact on the preoperative staging of breast cancer surgery. This study evaluated survival and surgical outcomes of preoperative MRI in conservative breast cancer surgery. METHODS: A phase III, randomized, open-label, single-center trial including female breast cancer participants, stage 0-III disease, and eligible for breast-conserving surgery. We compared the role of including MRI in preoperative evaluation versus radiologic exam routine with mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer conservative candidates. The primary outcome was local relapse-free survival (LRFS), and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), mastectomy rate, and reoperation rate. RESULTS: 524 were randomized to preoperative MRI group (n = 257) or control group (n = 267). The survival analysis showed a 5.9-years LRFS of 99.2% in MRI group versus 98.9% in control group (HR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.12-4.28; p = 0.7) and an OS of 95.3% in the MRI group versus 96.3% in the control group (HR = 1.37 95% CI 0.59-3.19; p = 0.8). Surgical management changed in 21 ipsilateral breasts in the MRI group; 21 (8.3%) had mastectomies versus one in the control group. No difference was found in reoperation rates, 22 (8.7%) in the MRI group versus 23 (8.7%) in the control group (RR = 1.002; 95% CI 0.57-1.75; p = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Preoperative MRI increased the mastectomy rates by 8%. The use of preoperative MRI did not influence local relapse-free survival, overall survival, or reoperation rates.

Efficacy and safety of hemodialysis strategies for pregnant women with chronic kidney disease: Systematic review.

Pregnancy in chronic kidney disease (CKD) women is relatively rare, and the less risky choice of hemodialysis is unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of hemodialysis strategies for pregnant CKD women. Sensitive search strategies were applied to six databases without data or language restrictions. Comparative (randomized and non-randomized) studies were prioritized. Two reviewers independently selected, extracted, and critically evaluated data from studies. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I tool, considering the study design (non-randomized comparative observational studies). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. From 7210 references identified, six retrospective cohort studies were included (576 women). The effects of intensive hemodialysis (over 20 h/week) are uncertain for maternal and neonatal mortality (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.26-2.80), miscarriage (Peto OR 0, 38; 95% CI 0.12-1.23), stillbirths (Peto OR 0, 56; 95% CI 0.13-2.31), preterm birth (Peto OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.33-2.28), low birth weight (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.20-2.50) and congenital anomalies rates. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to studies methodological limitations and effect estimates imprecision. The uncertainty about intensive versus conventional hemodialysis effects for pregnant women with CKD and the imprecision in the estimated effects precludes any recommendation. The strategy choice must consider treatment availability, costs, and maternal social aspects until future studies provide more reliable evidence. PROSPERO CRD42021259237.

Alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, T-cell-dependent, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies focus on treating and preventing exacerbations, and avoiding the progression of disability. At present, there is no treatment that is capable of safely and effectively reaching these objectives. Clinical trials suggest that alemtuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, could be a promising option for MS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of alemtuzumab alone or associated with other treatments in people with any form of MS. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with any subtype of MS comparing alemtuzumab alone or associated with other medications versus placebo; another active drug; or alemtuzumab in another dose, regimen, or duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our co-primary outcomes were 1. relapse-free survival, 2. sustained disease progression, and 3. number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event. Our secondary outcomes were 4. participants free of clinical disability, 5. quality of life, 6. change in disability, 7. fatigue, 8. new or enlarging lesions on resonance imaging, and 9. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs (1713 participants) comparing intravenous alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting MS. Participants were treatment-naive (two studies) or had experienced at least one relapse after interferon or glatiramer (one study). Alemtuzumab was given at doses of 12 mg/day or 24 mg/day for five days at months 0 and 12, or 24 mg/day for three days at months 12 and 24. Participants in the interferon beta-1a group received 44 µg three times weekly. Alemtuzumab 12 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18 to 0.53; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; 1 study, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (mean difference [MD] -0.70, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.36; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14; 1 study, 224 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Alemtuzumab 24 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (MD -0.83, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.50; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 5. may reduce the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, fatigue, and participants free of clinical disease activity, the studies either did not consider these outcomes or they used different measuring tools to those planned in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with interferon beta-1a, alemtuzumab may improve relapse-free survival and sustained disease progression-free survival, and make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event for people with relapsing-remitting MS at 36 months. The certainty of the evidence for these results was very low to low.

Erythromycin prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is the definitive treatment for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). However, up to 13% of people who undergo upper endoscopy will have incomplete visualisation of the gastric mucosa at presentation. Erythromycin acts as a motilin receptor agonist in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increases gastric emptying, which may lead to better quality of visualisation and improved treatment effectiveness. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of erythromycin in UGIH. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of erythromycin before endoscopy in adults with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, compared with any other treatment or no treatment/placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated erythromycin before endoscopy compared to any other treatment or no treatment/placebo before endoscopy in adults with acute UGIH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. UGIH-related mortality and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. visualisation of gastric mucosa, 3. non-serious adverse events, 4. rebleeding, 5. blood transfusion, and 5. rescue invasive intervention. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 878 participants. The mean age ranged from 53.13 years to 64.5 years, and most participants were men (72.3%). One RCT included only non-variceal haemorrhage, one included only variceal haemorrhage, and eight included both aetiologies. We defined short-term outcomes as those occurring within one week of initial endoscopy. Erythromycin versus placebo Three RCTs (255 participants) compared erythromycin with placebo. There were no UGIH-related deaths. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with placebo on serious adverse events (risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.02; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), and rebleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.90; 2 studies, 195 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin may improve gastric mucosa visualisation (mean difference (MD) 3.63 points on 16-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.05; higher MD means better visualisation; 2 studies, 195 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin may also result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion (MD -0.44 standard units of blood, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.01; 3 studies, 255 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage Six RCTs (408 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage compared with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.03; 3 studies, 238 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48 points on 10-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; higher SMD means better visualisation; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 6 studies, 408 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (MD -1.85 standard units of blood, 95% CI -4.34 to 0.64; 3 studies, 180 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin versus nasogastric tube lavage Four RCTs (287 participants) compared erythromycin with nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 2 studies, 198 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.13; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.49; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (median 2 standard units of blood, interquartile range 0 to 4 in both groups; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage One RCT (30 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage on all the reported outcomes (serious adverse events, visualisation of gastric mucosa, non-serious adverse events, and blood transfusion). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unsure if erythromycin before endoscopy in people with UGIH has any clinical benefits or harms. However, erythromycin compared with placebo may improve gastric mucosa visualisation and result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion.

Skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) is a surgical technique that aims to maximize skin preservation, facilitate breast reconstruction, and improve cosmetic outcomes. Despite its use in clinical practice, the benefits and harms related to SSM are not well established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 9 August 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized or non-randomized studies (cohort and case-control) comparing SSM to conventional mastectomy for treating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were local recurrence free-survival, adverse events (including overall complications, breast reconstruction loss, skin necrosis, infection and hemorrhage), cosmetic results, and quality of life. We performed a descriptive analysis and meta-analysis of the data. MAIN RESULTS: We found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs. We included two prospective cohort studies and twelve retrospective cohort studies. These studies included 12,211 participants involving 12,283 surgeries (3183 SSM and 9100 conventional mastectomies). It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for overall survival and local recurrence free-survival due to clinical heterogeneity across studies and a lack of data to calculate hazard ratios (HR).  Based on one study, the evidence suggests that SSM may not reduce overall survival for participants with DCIS tumors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.02; P = 0.06; 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or for participants with invasive carcinoma (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; P = 0.44; 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For local recurrence-free survival, meta-analysis was not possible, due to high risk of bias in nine of the ten studies that measured this outcome. Informal visual examination of effect sizes from nine studies suggested the size of the HR may be similar between groups. Based on one study that adjusted for confounders, SSM may not reduce local recurrence-free survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.42; P = 0.48; 5690 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  The effect of SSM on overall complications is unclear (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.46; P = 0.07, I2 = 88%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Skin-sparing mastectomy may not reduce the risk of breast reconstruction loss (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 10.35; P = 0.52; 3 studies, 475 participants; very low-certainty evidence), skin necrosis (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.12; P = 0.22, I2 = 33%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence), local infection (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 142.71; P = 0.74, I2 = 88%; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence), nor hemorrhage (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.27; P = 0.67, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency among the studies. There were no data available on the following outcomes: systemic surgical complications, local complications, explantation of implant/expander, hematoma, seroma, rehospitalization, skin necrosis with revisional surgery, and capsular contracture of the implant. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for cosmetic and quality of life outcomes due to a lack of data. One study performed an evaluation of aesthetic outcome after SSM: 77.7% of participants with immediate breast reconstruction had an overall aesthetic result of excellent or good versus 87% of participants with delayed breast reconstruction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence from observational studies, it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions on the effectiveness and safety of SSM for breast cancer treatment. The decision for this technique of breast surgery for treatment of DCIS or invasive breast cancer must be individualized and shared between the physician and the patient while considering the potential risks and benefits of available surgical options.

Adapting shift work schedules for sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleepiness in shift workers.

BACKGROUND: Shift work is associated with insufficient sleep, which can compromise worker alertness with ultimate effects on occupational health and safety. Adapting shift work schedules may reduce adverse occupational outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of shift schedule adaptation on sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleepiness among shift workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and eight other databases on 13 December 2020, and again on 20 April 2022, applying no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, including controlled before-after (CBA) trials, interrupted time series, and cross-over trials. Eligible trials evaluated any of the following shift schedule components. • Permanency of shifts • Regularity of shift changes • Direction of shift rotation • Speed of rotation • Shift duration • Timing of start of shifts • Distribution of shift schedule • Time off between shifts • Split shifts • Protected sleep • Worker participation We included studies that assessed sleep quality off-shift, sleep duration off-shift, or sleepiness during shifts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the records recovered by the search, read through the full-text articles of potentially eligible studies, and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, with specific additional domains for non-randomised and cluster-randomised studies. For all stages, we resolved any disagreements by consulting a third review author. We presented the results by study design and combined clinically homogeneous studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with a total of 2125 participants. One study was conducted in a laboratory setting and was not considered for drawing conclusions on intervention effects. The included studies investigated different and often multiple changes to shift schedule, and were heterogeneous with respect to outcome measurement. Forward versus backward rotation Three CBA trials (561 participants) investigated the effects of forward rotation versus backward rotation. Only one CBA trial provided sufficient data for the quantitative analysis; it provided very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation compared with backward rotation did not affect sleep quality measured with the Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire (BNSQ; mean difference (MD) -0.20 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.28 to 1.89; 62 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (MD -0.21 hours, 95% CI -3.29 to 2.88; 62 participants). However, there was also very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation reduced sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD -1.24 points, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.24; 62 participants). Faster versus slower rotation Two CBA trials and one non-randomised cross-over trial (341 participants) evaluated faster versus slower shift rotation. We were able to meta-analyse data from two studies. There was low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality off-shift (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.23) and very low-certainty evidence that faster shift rotation reduced sleep duration off-shift (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01; 2 studies, 282 participants). The SMD for sleep duration translated to an MD of 0.38 hours' less sleep per day (95% CI -0.74 to -0.01). One study provided very low-certainty evidence that faster rotations decreased sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD -1.24 points, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.24; 62 participants). Limited shift duration (16 hours) versus unlimited shift duration Two RCTs (760 participants) evaluated 80-hour workweeks with maximum daily shift duration of 16 hours versus workweeks without any daily shift duration limits. There was low-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit increased sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.78; which translated to an MD of 0.73 hours' more sleep per day, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 760 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit reduced sleepiness during shifts, measured with the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; which translated to an MD of 0.37 fewer points, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 716 participants). Shorter versus longer shifts One RCT, one CBA trial, and one non-randomised cross-over trial (692 participants) evaluated shorter shift duration (eight to 10 hours) versus longer shift duration (two to three hours longer). There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.15; which translated to an MD of 0.13 points lower on a scale of 1 to 5; 2 studies, 111 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.54; which translated to an MD of 0.26 hours' less sleep per day; 2 studies, 121 participants). The RCT and the non-randomised cross-over study found that shorter shifts reduced sleepiness during shifts, while the CBA study found no effect on sleepiness. More compressed versus more spread out shift schedules One RCT and one CBA trial (346 participants) evaluated more compressed versus more spread out shift schedules. The CBA trial provided very low-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in sleep quality off-shift (MD 0.31 points, 95% CI -0.53 to 1.15) and sleep duration off-shift (MD 0.52 hours, 95% CI -0.52 to 1.56). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Forward and faster rotation may reduce sleepiness during shifts, and may make no difference to sleep quality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Very low-certainty evidence indicated that sleep duration off-shift decreases with faster rotation. Low-certainty evidence indicated that on-duty workweeks with shift duration limited to 16 hours increases sleep duration, with moderate-certainty evidence for minimal reductions in sleepiness. Changes in shift duration and compression of workweeks had no effect on sleep or sleepiness, but the evidence was of very low-certainty. No evidence is available for other shift schedule changes. There is a need for more high-quality studies (preferably RCTs) for all shift schedule interventions to draw conclusions on the effects of shift schedule adaptations on sleep and sleepiness in shift workers.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Competency profiles for evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM): a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational capacities, linked with background factors and needs. The identification of essential knowledge, skills and attitudes for EIPM can support the development of competency profiles and their application in different contexts. PURPOSE: To identify elements of competency (knowledge, skills and attitudes) for EIPM, according to different professional profiles (researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen). METHODS: Rapid umbrella review. A structured search was conducted and later updated in two comprehensive repositories (BVSalud and PubMed). Review studies with distinctive designs were included, published from 2010 onwards, without language restrictions. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was not performed. A meta-aggregative narrative synthesis was used to report the findings. RESULTS: Ten reviews were included. A total of 37 elements of competency were identified, eight were categorized as knowledge, 19 as skills and 10 as attitudes. These elements were aggregated into four competency profiles: researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen. The competency profiles included different sets of EIPM-related knowledge, skills and attitudes. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study is innovative because it aggregates different profiles of competency from a practical perspective, favouring the application of its results in different contexts to support EIPM. Methodological limitations are related to the shortcuts adopted in this review: complementary searches of the grey literature were not performed, and the study selection and data extraction were not conducted in duplicate. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EIPM requires the development of individual and organizational capacities. This rapid review contributes to the discussion on the institutionalization of EIPM in health systems. The competency profiles presented here can support discussions about the availability of capacity and the need for its development in different contexts.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population. RESULTS: Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

An evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) competency profile for the Brazilian Health System developed through consensus: process and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational knowledge, skills and attitudes that should be articulated with background factors and needs. In this regard, the development of an EIPM competency profile is important to support the diagnosis, planning and implementation of EIPM. PURPOSE: To present the process and outcomes of the development of an EIPM competency profile by an expert committee, to be applied in different contexts of the Brazilian Health System. METHODS: A committee of experts in EIPM shared different views, experiences and opinions to develop an EIPM competency profile for Brazil. In six consensus workshops mediated by facilitators, the committee defined from macro problems to key actions and performances essential for the competency profile. The development steps consisted of: (1) Constitution of the committee, including researchers, professionals with practical experience, managers, and educators; (2) Development of a rapid review on EIPM competency profiles; (3) Agreement on commitments and responsibilities in the processes; (4) Identification and definition of macro problems relating to the scope of the competency profile; and (5) Outlining of general and specific capacities, to be incorporated into the competency profile, categorized by key actions. RESULTS: The development of the EIPM competency profile was guided by the following macro problems: (1) lack of systematic and transparent decision-making processes in health policy management; (2) underdeveloped institutional capacity for knowledge management and translation; and (3) incipient use of scientific evidence in the formulation and implementation of health policies. A general framework of key actions and performances of the EIPM Competency Profile for Brazil was developed, including 42 specific and general key actions distributed by area of activity (Health Management, Scientific Research, Civil Society, Knowledge Translation, and Cross-sectional areas). CONCLUSIONS: The competency profile presented in this article can be used in different contexts as a key tool for the institutionalization of EIPM.

CAR-T cell therapy for patients with hematological malignancies. A systematic review.

Hematological malignancies represent defying clinical conditions, with high levels of morbidity and mortality, particularly considering patients who manifest multiple refractory diseases. Recently, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has emerged as a potential treatment option for relapsed/refractory B cell malignancies, which have motivated the Food and Drug Administration approval of a series of products based on this technique. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of CAR-T cell therapy for patients with hematological malignancies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the electronic databases (CENTRAL, Embase, LILACS, and MEDLINE), clinical trials register platforms (Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP), and grey literature (OpenGrey). The Cochrane Handbook for Reviews of Interventions was used for developing the review and the PRISMA Statement for manuscript reporting. The protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO database (CRD42020181047). After the selection process, seven RCTs were included, three of which with available outcome results. The available results are from studies assessing axicabtagene, lisocabtagene, and tisagenlecleucel for patients with B cell lymphoma, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low for survival and progression-related outcome and for safety outcomes. Additionally, four randomized controlled trials comparing CAR-T cell therapy to the standard treatment for various types of relapsed/refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and multiple myeloma included in this systematic review still did not have available outcome data. The results of this review may be used to guide clinical practice but evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of CAR-T Cell therapy for hematological malignancies is still immature to recommend its application outside of clinical trials or compassionate use context for advanced and terminal cases. It is expected the results of the referred comparative studies will provide further elements to subsidize the broader application of this immunotherapy.

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment.

BACKGROUND: The use of mechanical thrombectomy to restore intracranial blood flow after proximal large artery occlusion by a thrombus has increased over time and led to better outcomes than intravenous thrombolytic therapy alone. Currently, the type of anaesthetic technique during mechanical thrombectomy is under debate as having a relevant impact on neurological outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of anaesthesia for endovascular interventions in people with acute ischaemic stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Register of Trials on 5 July 2022, and CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and seven other databases on 21 March 2022. We performed searches of reference lists of included trials, grey literature sources, and other systematic reviews.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with a parallel design that compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia, conscious sedation anaesthesia, or monitored care anaesthesia for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischaemic stroke. We also included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, studies without a comparator group, and studies with a retrospective design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of the stroke symptoms to 90 days after the start of the intervention. The main outcomes were functional outcome, neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation, adverse events, and quality of life. All included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 days) time points. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with 982 participants, which investigated the type of anaesthesia for endovascular treatment in large vessel occlusion in the intracranial circulation. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of stroke symptoms to 90 days after the procedure. Therefore, all included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 up to 90 days) time points. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia(early) We are uncertain about the effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to 0.31; P = 1.0; 1 study, 90 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion (MD 2.91 minutes, 95% CI -5.11 to 10.92; P = 0.48; I² = 48%; 5 studies, 498 participants; very low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia may lead to no difference in neurological impairment up to 48 hours after the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.59; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 982 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in stroke-related mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 330 participants; low-certainty evidence), all intracranial haemorrhages (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29; P = 0.63; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 693 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to non-general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; P = 0.02; I² = 71%; 2 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I² = 29%; 7 studies, 982 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no available data for quality of life. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia (long-term) There is no difference in general anaesthesia compared to non-general anaesthesia for dichotomous and continuous functional outcomes (dichotomous: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.58; P = 0.16; I² = 29%; 4 studies, 625 participants; low-certainty evidence; continuous: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.06; P = 0.17; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 978 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia showed no changes in stroke-related mortality compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; P = 0.44; I² = 12%; 6 studies, 843 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no available data for neurological impairment, all intracranial haemorrhages, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion, adverse events (haemodynamic instability), or quality of life. Ongoing studies We identified eight ongoing studies. Five studies compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia, one study compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia plus local anaesthesia, and two studies compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia. Of these studies, seven plan to report data on functional outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale, five studies on neurological impairment, six studies on stroke-related mortality, two studies on all intracranial haemorrhage, five studies on target artery revascularisation status, four studies on time to revascularisation, and four studies on adverse events. One ongoing study plans to report data on quality of life. One study did not plan to report any outcome of interest for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In early outcomes, general anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia with moderate-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage and haemodynamic instability adverse events between groups with low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain whether general anaesthesia improves functional outcomes and time to revascularisation because the certainty of the evidence is very low. However, regarding long-term outcomes, general anaesthesia makes no difference to functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia did not change stroke-related mortality when compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. There were no reported data for other outcomes. In view of the limited evidence of effect, more randomised controlled trials with a large number of participants and good protocol design with a low risk of bias should be performed to reduce our uncertainty and to aid decision-making in the choice of anaesthesia.

Efficacy and safety of therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs: Overview of systematic reviews.

The debate on the use of cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes is constantly on the rise. This overview aimed to map the evidence on the therapeutic effects of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized trials were identified through a comprehensive search in several databases, and their methodological quality were evaluated with AMSTAR-2. The results for main outcomes are presented, prioritizing those from updated and better quality SRs. Finally, 68 SRs, addressing 37 different health conditions, were included. The methodological quality was high for eight SRs. The evidence certainty (GRADE) for the effects of cannabinoids is not high for any of the outcomes identified. Evidence certainty was moderate for the following: (a) cannabidiol appears to be beneficial for quality of life but increases the risk of adverse events in ulcerative colitis; (b) cannabinoids in general appear to have no clinically important benefit for chronic non-oncologic pain, spasticity-related pain in multiple sclerosis, or for acute post-operative pain; (c) cannabinoids in general appear to have a benefit in reducing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. For all other outcomes from remaining comparisons, the evidence certainty was low, very low, or not evaluated, which prevents recommendations for or against their routine use.

Injection sclerotherapy for varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Varicose veins are enlarged and tortuous veins, affecting up to one-third of the world's population. They can be a cause of chronic venous insufficiency, which is characterised by oedema, pigmentation, eczema, lipodermatosclerosis, atrophie blanche, and healed or active venous ulcers. Injection sclerotherapy (liquid or foam) is widely used for treatment of varicose veins aiming to transform the varicose veins into a fibrous cord. However, there is limited evidence regarding its effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with more severe disease. This is the second update of the review first published in 2002. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and LILACS databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 20 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials and first phase cross-over studies) that used injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed, selected and extracted data. Disagreements were cross-checked by a third review author. We used Cochrane's Risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were cosmetic appearance, complications, residual varicose veins, quality of life (QoL), persistence of symptoms, and recurrent varicose veins. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the worst-case-scenario for dichotomous data imputation for intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous outcomes, we used the 'last-observation-carried-forward' for data imputation if there was balanced loss to follow-up. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 new RCTs for this update, bringing the total to 28 studies involving 4278 participants. The studies differed in their design, and in which sclerotherapy method, agent or concentration was used. None of the included RCTs compared sclerotherapy to no intervention or to any pharmacological therapy. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, low number of studies providing information for each outcome, low number of participants, clinical differences between the study participants, and wide CIs. Sclerotherapy versus placebo Foam sclerotherapy may improve cosmetic appearance as measured by IPR-V (independent photography review - visible varicose veins scores) compared to placebo (polidocanol 1%: mean difference (MD) -0.76, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rates may be slightly increased in this intervention group (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 20.01; 3 studies, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Residual varicose vein rates may be decreased following polidocanol 1% compared to placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.29; 2 studies, 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Following polidocanol 1% use, there may be a possible improvement in QoL as assessed using the VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire (MD 12.41, 95% CI 9.56 to 15.26; 3 studies, 299 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and possible improvement in varicose vein symptoms as assessed using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (MD -3.25, 95% CI -3.90 to -2.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent varicose veins were not reported for this comparison. Foam sclerotherapy versus foam sclerotherapy with different concentrations Three individual RCTs reported no evidence of a difference in cosmetic appearance after comparing different concentrations of the intervention; data could not be pooled for two of the three studies (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no clear difference in rates of thromboembolic complications when comparing one foam concentration with another (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.33; 3 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three RCTs investigating higher concentrations of polidocanol foam indicated the rate of residual varicose veins may be slightly decreased in the polidocanol 3% foam group compared to 1% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.04; 3 studies, 371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear improvement in QoL was detected. Two RCTs reported improved VCSS scores with increasing concentrations of foam. Persistence of symptoms were not reported for this comparison. There was no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 1 study, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). Foam sclerotherapy versus liquid sclerotherapy One RCT reported on cosmetic appearance with no evidence of a difference between foam or liquid sclerotherapy (patient satisfaction scale MD 0.2, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67; 1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the RCTs investigated thromboembolic complications, QoL or persistence of symptoms. Six studies individually showed there may be a benefit to polidocanol 3% foam over liquid sclerotherapy in reducing residual varicose vein rate; pooling data from two studies showed a RR of 0.51, with 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence. One study reported no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates when comparing sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) foam or liquid (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.42; 1 study, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with different substances Four RCTs compared sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with any other substance. We were unable to combine the data due to heterogeneity or assess the certainty of the evidence due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low to low-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, sclerotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for varicose veins concerning cosmetic appearance, residual varicose veins, QoL, and persistence of symptoms. Rates of DVT may be slightly increased and there were no data concerning recurrent varicose veins. There was limited or no evidence for one concentration of foam compared to another; foam compared to liquid sclerotherapy; foam compared to any other substance; or one technique compared to another. There is a need for high-quality trials using standardised sclerosant doses, with clearly defined core outcome sets, and measurement time points to increase the certainty of the evidence.

Botulinum toxin type A for facial wrinkles.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A (BontA) is the most frequent treatment for facial wrinkles, but its effectiveness and safety have not previously been assessed in a Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of all commercially available botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of any type of facial wrinkles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2020: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with over 50 participants, comparing BontA versus placebo, other types of BontA, or fillers (hyaluronic acid), for treating facial wrinkles in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant assessment of success and major adverse events (AEs) (eyelid ptosis, eyelid sensory disorder, strabismus). Secondary outcomes included physician assessment of success; proportion of participants with at least one AE and duration of treatment effect. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 RCTs, involving 14,919 randomised participants. Most participants were female, aged 18 to 65 years. All participants were outpatients (private office or day clinic). Study duration was between one week and one year. No studies were assessed as low risk of bias in all domains; the overall risk of bias was unclear for most studies. The most common comparator was placebo (36 studies). An active control was used in 19 studies. There were eight dose-ranging studies of onabotulinumtoxinA, and a small number of studies compared against fillers. Treatment was given in one cycle (54 studies), two cycles (three studies), or three or more cycles (eight studies). The treated regions were glabella (43 studies), crow's feet (seven studies), forehead (two studies), perioral (two studies), full face (one study), or more than two regions (nine studies). Most studies analysed moderate to severe wrinkles; mean duration of treatment was 20 weeks. The following results summarise the main comparisons, based on studies of one treatment cycle for the glabella. AEs were collected over the duration of these studies (over four to 24 weeks). Compared to placebo, onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U probably has a higher success rate when assessed by participants (risk ratio (RR) 19.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 43.99; 575 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or physicians (RR 17.10, 95% CI 10.07 to 29.05; 1339 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably higher with onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.74; 1390 participants; 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but there may be no difference in any AEs (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.45; 1388 participants; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U has a higher participant-assessed success rate at week four (RR 21.22, 95% CI 7.40 to 60.56; 915 participants; 6 studies; high-certainty evidence); and probably has a higher physician-assessed success rate (RR 14.93, 95% CI 8.09 to 27.55; 1059 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There are probably more major AEs with abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U (Peto OR 3.36, 95% CI 0.88 to 12.87; 1294 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Any AE may be more common with abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49; 1471 participants; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, incobotulinumtoxinA-20 U probably has a higher participant-assessed success rate at week four (RR 66.57, 95% CI 13.50 to 328.28; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and physician-assessed success rate (RR 134.62, 95% CI 19.05 to 951.45; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Major AEs were not observed (547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference between groups in any AEs (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.53; 547 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). AbobotulinumtoxinA-50 U is no different to onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U in participant-assessed success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08, 388 participants, 1 study, high-certainty evidence) and physician-assessed success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 388 participants; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably more likely in the abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U group than the onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U group (Peto OR 2.65, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.09; 433 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in any AE (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.54; 492 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). IncobotulinumtoxinA-24 U may be no different to onabotulinumtoxinA-24 U in physician-assessed success rate at week four (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 381 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) (participant assessment was not measured). One participant reported ptosis with onabotulinumtoxinA, but we are uncertain of the risk of AEs (Peto OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.77; 381 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, daxibotulinumtoxinA-40 U probably has a higher participant-assessed success rate (RR 21.10, 95% CI 11.31 to 39.34; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and physician-assessed success rate (RR 23.40, 95% CI 12.56 to 43.61; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs were not observed (716 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be an increase in any AE with daxibotulinumtoxinA compared to placebo (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.40; 716 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Major AEs reported were mainly ptosis; BontA is also known to carry a risk of strabismus or eyelid sensory disorders. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: BontA treatment reduces wrinkles within four weeks of treatment, but probably increases risk of ptosis. We found several heterogeneous studies (different types or doses of BontA, number of cycles, and different facial regions) hindering meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence for effectiveness outcomes was high, low or moderate; for AEs, very low to moderate. Future RCTs should compare the most common BontA (onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, daxibotulinumtoxinA, prabotulinumtoxinA) and evaluate long-term outcomes. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of multiple cycles of BontA, frequency of major AEs, duration of effect, efficacy of recently-approved BontA and comparisons with other treatments.

Non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy for improving erectile dysfunction in men with obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) is associated with several chronic diseases, including erectile dysfunction (ED). The association of OSAS and ED is far more common than might be found by chance; the treatment of OSAS with non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy is associated with improvement of respiratory symptoms, and may contribute to the improvement of associated conditions, such as ED. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and acceptability of non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy for improving erectile dysfunction in OSAS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED EBSCO, and LILACS, the US National Institutes of Health ongoing trials register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation international clinical trials registry platform to 14 June 2021, with no restriction on date, language, or status of publication. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and review articles for additional references, and relevant manufacturers' websites for study information. We also searched specific conference proceedings for the British Association of Urological Surgeons; the European Association of Urology; and the American Urological Association to 14 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel or cross-over design, or cluster-RCTs, which included men aged 18 years or older, with OSAS and ED. We considered RCTs comparing any non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy (such as continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), variable positive airway pressure (VPAP), or similar devices) versus sham, no treatment, waiting list, or pharmacological treatment for ED. The primary outcomes were remission of ED and serious adverse events; secondary outcome were sex-related quality of life, health-related quality of life, and minor adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. A third review author solved any disagreement. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included RCTs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. To measure the treatment effect on dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR); for continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD). We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for these measures. When possible (data availability and homogeneous studies), we used a random-effect model to pool data with a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (all assessing CPAP as the non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy device), with a total of 315 men with OSAS and ED. All RCTs presented some important risk of bias related to selection, performance, assessment, or reporting bias. None of included RCTs assessed the ED remission rate, and we used the provided ED mean scores as a proxy. CPAP versus no CPAP There is uncertainty about the effect of CPAP on mean ED scores after 4 weeks, using the International index of erectile function (IIEF-5, higher = better; MD 7.50, 95% CI 4.05 to 10.95; 1 RCT; 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and after 12 weeks (IIEF-ED, ED domain; MD 2.50, 95% CI -1.10 to 6.10; 1 RCT; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision). There is uncertainty about the effect of CPAP on sex-related quality of life after 12 weeks, using the Self-esteem and relationship test (SEAR, higher = better; MD 1.00, 95% CI -8.09 to 10.09; 1 RCT; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision); no serious adverse events were reported after 4 weeks (1 RCT; 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision). CPAP versus sham CPAP One RCT assessed this comparison (61 participants), but we were unable to extract outcomes for this comparison due to the factorial design and reporting of this trial. CPAP versus sildenafil (phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors) Sildenafil may slightly improve erectile function at 12 weeks when compared to CPAP, measured with the IIEF-ED (MD -4.78, 95% CI -6.98 to -2.58; 3 RCTs; 152 participants; I² = 59%; low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations). There is uncertainty about the effect of CPAP on sex-related quality of life after 12 weeks, measured with the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction questionnaire (EDITS, higher = better; MD -1.24, 95% CI -1.80 to -0.67; 2 RCTs; 122 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations). No serious adverse events were reported for either group (2 RCTs; 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision). There is uncertainty about the effects of CPAP when compared to sildenafil for the incidence of minor adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.21; 1 RCT; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision). The confidence interval was wide and neither a significant increase nor reduction in the risk of minor adverse events can be ruled out with the use of CPAP (4/20 men complained of nasal dryness in the CPAP group, and 3/20 men complained of transient flushing and mild headache in the sildenafil group). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared with no CPAP, we are uncertain about the effectiveness and acceptability of CPAP for improving erectile dysfunction in men with obstructive sleep apnoea. When compared with sildenafil, there is some evidence that sildenafil may slightly improve erectile function at 12 weeks.

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Frequency, signs and symptoms, and criteria adopted for long COVID-19: A systematic review.

AIMS: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarise the best available evidence on the frequency of long COVID-19 (post-acute COVID-19 syndrome), its clinical manifestations, and the criteria used for diagnosis. METHODS: Systematic review conducted with a comprehensive search including formal databases, COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 data sources, grey literature, and manual search. We considered for inclusion clinical trials, observational longitudinal comparative and non-comparative studies, cross-sectional, before-and-after, and case series. We assessed the methodological quality by specific tools based on the study designs. We presented the results as a narrative synthesis regarding the frequency and duration of long COVID-19, signs and symptoms, criteria used for diagnosis, and potential risk factors. RESULTS: We included 25 observational studies with moderate to high methodological quality, considering 5440 participants. The frequency of long COVID-19 ranged from 4.7% to 80%, and the most prevalent signs/symptoms were chest pain (up to 89%), fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 61%), and cough and sputum production (up to 59%). Temporal criteria used to define long COVID-19 varied from 3 to 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Potentially associated risk factors were old age, female sex, severe clinical status, a high number of comorbidities, hospital admission, and oxygen supplementation at the acute phase. However, limitations related to study designs added uncertainty to this finding. None of the studies assessed the duration of signs/symptoms. CONCLUSION: The frequency of long COVID-19 reached up to 80% over the studies included and occurred between 3 and 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Chest pain, fatigue, dyspnea, and cough were the most reported clinical manifestations attributed to the condition. Based on these systematic review findings, there is an urgent need to understand this emerging, complex and challenging medical condition. Proposals for diagnostic criteria and standard terminology are welcome.

Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with third-generation drugs for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in both sexes worldwide. Approximately 50% of those diagnosed with lung cancer will have locally advanced or metastatic disease and will be treated in a palliative setting. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy has benefits in terms of survival and symptom control when compared with best supportive care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of carboplatin-based chemotherapy when compared with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, both in combination with a third-generation drug, in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To compare quality of life in people with advanced NSCLC receiving chemotherapy with cisplatin and carboplatin combined with a third-generation drug. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 13 January 2019), MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to 13 January 2019), and Embase (via Ovid) (1974 to 13 January 2019). In addition, we handsearched the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Meetings (January 1990 to September 2018) and reference lists from relevant resources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing regimens with carboplatin or cisplatin combined with a third-generation drug in people with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We accepted any regimen and number of cycles that included these drugs, since there is no widely accepted standard regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results, and a third review author resolved any disagreements. The primary outcomes were overall survival and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were one-year survival rate, objective response rate and toxicity. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we located one additional RCT, for a total of 11 included RCTs (5088 participants, 4046 of whom were available for meta-analysis). There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.20; 10 RCTs; 2515 participants; high-quality evidence); one-year survival rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; I2 = 17%; 4004 participants; all 11 RCTs; high-quality evidence); or response rate (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00; I2 = 12%; all 11 RCTs; 4020 participants; high-quality evidence). A subgroup analysis comparing carboplatin with different doses of cisplatin found an overall survival benefit in favour of carboplatin-based regimens when compared to cisplatin at lower doses (40 to 80 mg/m2) (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.28; 6 RCTs; 2508 participants), although there was no overall survival benefit when carboplatin-based chemotherapy was compared to cisplatin at higher doses (80 to 100 mg/m2) (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs; 1823 participants). Carboplatin caused more thrombocytopenia (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.04; I2 = 68%; 10 RCTs; 3670 participants) and was associated with more neurotoxicity (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.23; I2 = 0%, 5 RCTs; 1489 participants), although we believe this last finding is probably related to a confounding factor (higher dose of paclitaxel in the carboplatin-containing treatment arm of a large study included in the analysis). There was no statistically significant difference in renal toxicity (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45; I2 = 3%; 3 RCTs; 1272 participants); alopecia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; 300 participants); anaemia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.38; I2 = 77%; 10 RCTs; 3857 participants); and neutropenia (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.63; I2 = 94%; 10 RCTs; 3857 participants) between cisplatin-based chemotherapy and carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens. Two RCTs performed a health-related quality of life analysis; however, as they used different methods of measurement we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. One RCT reported comparative health-related quality of life data between cisplatin and carboplatin-containing arms but found no significant differences in global indices of quality of life, including global health status or functional scales. In this Cochrane review, we found that the quality of evidence was high for overall survival, one-year survival rate and response rate but moderate quality evidence for the other outcomes measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Advanced NSCL patients treated with carboplatin or cisplatin doublet with third-generation chemotherapy drugs showed equivalent overall survival, one-year survival, and response rate. Regarding adverse events, carboplatin caused more thrombocytopenia, and cisplatin caused more nausea/vomiting. Therefore, in this palliative therapeutic intent, the choice of the platin compound should take into account the expected toxicity profile, patient's comorbidities and preferences.

Photobiomodulation with low-level laser therapy for treating Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the benefits and harms of low-level laser therapy for Achilles tendinopathy. DATA SOURCES: Search strategies were conducted (from inception to February 2020) in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde e do Caribe (LILACS), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), SPORTDiscus, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO)-ICTRP and OpenGrey databases, to retrieve all randomized controlled trials that compared laser therapy with inactive/active interventions. REVIEW METHODS: This study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of bias table. Meta-analyses were performed on dependence of homogeneity, otherwise results were reported narratively. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Four trials (119 participants) were analyzed. Laser therapy associated to eccentric exercises when compared to eccentric exercises and sham had very low to low certainty of evidence in pain and function assessment. Despite one trial favored laser therapy at two months (mean difference (MD) -2.55, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -3.87 to -1.23), the CIs did not include important differences between groups at 3 and 13 months. The function assessment showed an improvement favoring the placebo group at one month (MD 9.19, 95% CI -16.16 to -2.23) and non-significant difference between groups at 3 and 13 months. Adverse events were poorly reported but restricted to minor events related to the exercises. CONCLUSION: The certainty of evidence was low to very low, and the results are insufficient to support the routine use laser therapy for Achilles tendinopathy.