A comparative dataset: Bridging COVID-19 and other diseases through epistemonikos and CORD-19 evidence.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the need for reliable information for clinical decision-making and public health policies. As such, evidence-based medicine (EBM) is essential in identifying and evaluating scientific documents pertinent to novel diseases, and the accurate classification of biomedical text is integral to this process. Given this context, we introduce a comprehensive, curated dataset composed of COVID-19-related documents. This dataset includes 20,047 labeled documents that were meticulously classified into five distinct categories: systematic reviews (SR), primary study randomized controlled trials (PS-RCT), primary study non-randomized controlled trials (PS-NRCT), broad synthesis (BS), and excluded (EXC). The documents, labeled by collaborators from the Epistemonikos Foundation, incorporate information such as document type, title, abstract, and metadata, including PubMed id, authors, journal, and publication date. Uniquely, this dataset has been curated by the Epistemonikos Foundation and is not readily accessible through conventional web-scraping methods, thereby attesting to its distinctive value in this field of research. In addition to this, the dataset also includes a vast evidence repository comprising 427,870 non-COVID-19 documents, also categorized into SR, PS-RCT, PS-NRCT, BS, and EXC. This additional collection can serve as a valuable benchmark for subsequent research. The comprehensive nature of this open-access dataset and its accompanying resources is poised to significantly advance evidence-based medicine and facilitate further research in the domain.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

The BIGG-REC database makes available all WHO/PAHO evidence informed recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To build and maintain a living database of the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) recommendations developed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines are identified from WHO and PAHO databases. We periodically extract recommendations, according to the health and well-being targets of sustainable development goal 3 (SDG-3). RESULTS: As of March 2022, the International database of GRADE guidelines (https://bigg-rec.bvsalud.org/en) database hosted 2,682 recommendations contained in 285 WHO/PAHO guidelines. Recommendations were classified as follows: communicable diseases (1,581), children's health (1,182), universal health (1,171), sexual and reproductive health (910), noncommunicable diseases (677), maternal health (654), COVID-19 (224), use of psychoactive substances (99), tobacco (14) and road and traffic accidents (16). International database of GRADE guidelines allows searching by SDG-3, condition or disease, type of intervention, institution, year of publication, and age. CONCLUSION: Recommendation maps provide an important resource for health professionals, organizations and member states that use evidence-informed guidance to make better decisions, providing a source for the adoption or adaptation of recommendations to meet their needs. This one-stop shop database of evidence-informed recommendations built with intuitive functionalities undoubtedly represents a long-needed tool for decision-makers, guideline developers, and the public at large.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Cánula Nasal de Alto Flujo en Adultos con Enfermedades Respiratorias Crónicas durante el Ejercicio Físico: Protocolo de Revisión Sistemática y Metaanálisis / High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Adults with Chronic Respiratory Diseases during Physical Exercise: A Protocol Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introducción. El entrenamiento físico puede mejorar la capacidad de ejercicio, la disnea y la calidad de vida (CV) en pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias crónicas (ERC). En este contexto, el uso de oxígeno suplementario a través de una cánula nasal de alto flujo (CNAF) podría ser un dispositivo que permita tolerar mayores niveles de actividad con menos síntomas de esfuerzo físico, optimizando en última instancia la capacidad de ejercicio y la CV. Objetivo. Este protocolo pretende conducir una revisión sistemática para evaluar el efecto terapéutico de la CNAF durante el ejercicio físico en pacientes con ERC. Fuente de búsqueda. Se realizarán búsquedas en el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), PUBMED, Embase, Lilacs, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov y literatura gris. Criterios de elegibilidad. Examinaremos los ECA de acuerdo con los criterios de elegibilidad para su inclusión en nuestra revisión. Dos revisores examinarán de forma independiente cada estudio para la elegibilidad, la extracción de datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo. Se combinarán los resultados mediante un metanálisis y se aplicará el sistema GRADE para evaluar la certeza de las pruebas para cada resultado. La medida de resultado primaria será la capacidad de ejercicio, y las medidas de resultado secundarias serán la calidad de vida, la disnea, la funcionalidad, la comodidad, las complicaciones y adherencia. Se realizarán metaanálisis para determinar la diferencia de medias (DM) o la DM estandarizada para los datos continuos y la razón de riesgo para los datos dicotómicos. Se realizarán análisis de subgrupos según los tipos y la gravedad de la enfermedad, las condiciones de ejercicio físico y el estado de los dispositivos de oxigenoterapia. Ética y difusión. Como los investigadores no accederán a información que pueda conducir a la identificación de un participante individual, no fue necesario a obtener aprobación ética. Número de registro de PROSPERO: CRD42022336263.

Background. Physical training can improve exercise capacity, dyspnoea, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). It has been suggested that using supplemental oxygen through a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could lead to higher levels of activity to be tolerated with fewer symptoms of physical exertion, ultimately optimizing exercise capacity and QoL. Objective. To conduct a systematic review to assess the therapeutic effect of HFNC during physical exercise in patients with CRDs. We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, Embase, Lilacs, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and grey literature. Eligibility criteria. We will examine RCTs according to the eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers will independently examine each study for eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We will combine the results using meta-analysis and apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. The primary outcome will be exercise capacity, and secondary outcomes will be QoL, dyspnoea, functionality, comfort, complications, and adherence. We will perform meta-analyses to determine the mean difference (MD) or standardized MD for continuous data and the risk ratio for dichotomous data. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to types and severity of disease, physical exercise conditions, and condition of oxygen therapy devices. Ethics and Dissemination. As researchers will not access information that could lead to the identification of an individual participant, obtaining ethical approval was waived. Prospero registration number: CRD42022336263.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Evidence mapping and overview of systematic reviews of the effects of acupuncture therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a route map regarding systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture therapies that will meet two goals: (1) to identify areas in which more or better evidence is required and (2) to identify acupuncture applications that, although proven effective, remain underused in practice, and thus warrant more effective knowledge dissemination. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included SRs that conducted meta-analyses (MAs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for this overview. INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched for SRs without language restrictions from January 2015 to November 2020 in four Chinese electronic databases and Epistemonikos database. And we also searched for newly published RCTs that were eligible for selected best SRs in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and four Chinese electronic databases from its lasted search dates to November 2020. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We reanalysed the selected MAs if new primary studies were added. We used random-effect model to calculate the overall effect. RESULTS: Our search identified 120 SRs published in the last 5 years addressing acupuncture therapies across 12 therapeutic areas and 77 diseases and conditions. The SRs included 205 outcomes and involved 138 995 participants from 1402 RCTs. We constructed 77 evidence matrices, including 120 SRs and their included RCTs in the Epistemonikos database. Seventy-seven SRs represented the effect estimate of acupuncture therapies. Finally, we system summarised the areas of possible underutilisation of acupuncture therapies (high or moderate certainty evidence of large or moderate effects), and the areas of warranting additional investigation of acupuncture therapies (low or very low certainty evidence of moderate or large effects). CONCLUSION: The evidence maps and overview of SRs on acupuncture therapies identified both therapies with substantial benefits that may require more assertive evidence dissemination and promising acupuncture therapies that require further investigation.

COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 Living OVerview of Evidence (COVID-19 L·OVE) is a public repository and classification platform for COVID-19 articles. The repository contains more than 430,000 articles as of September 20, 2021 and intends to provide a one-stop shop for COVID-19 evidence. Considering that systematic reviews conduct high-quality searches, this study assesses the comprehensiveness and currency of the repository against the total number of studies in a representative sample of COVID-19 systematic reviews. METHODS: Our sample was generated from all the studies included in the systematic reviews of COVID-19 published during April 2021. We estimated the comprehensiveness of COVID-19 L·OVE repository by determining how many of the individual studies in the sample were included in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository. We estimated the currency as the percentage of studies that was available in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository at the time the systematic reviews conducted their own search. RESULTS: We identified 83 eligible systematic reviews that included 2,132 studies. COVID-19 L·OVE had an overall comprehensiveness of 99.67% (2,125/2,132). The overall currency of the repository, that is, the proportion of articles that would have been obtained if the search of the reviews was conducted in COVID-19 L·OVE instead of searching the original sources, was 96.48% (2,057/2,132). Both the comprehensiveness and the currency were 100% for randomized trials (82/82). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and current. Using this repository instead of traditional manual searches in multiple databases can save a great amount of work to people conducting systematic reviews and would improve the comprehensiveness and timeliness of evidence syntheses. This tool is particularly important for supporting living evidence synthesis processes.

Correction: Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241955.].

The clinical utility of polygenic risk scores in genomic medicine practices: a systematic review.

Genomic medicine aims to improve health using the individual genomic data of people to inform care. While clinical utility of genomic medicine in many monogenic, Mendelian disorders is amply demonstrated, clinical utility is less evident in polygenic traits, e.g., coronary artery disease or breast cancer. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are subsets of individual genotypes designed to capture heritability of common traits, and hence to allow the stratification of risk of the trait in a population. We systematically reviewed the PubMed database for unequivocal evidence of clinical utility of polygenic risk scores, using stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. While we identified studies demonstrating clinical validity in conditions where medical intervention based on a PRS is likely to benefit patient outcome, we did not identify a single study demonstrating unequivocally such a benefit, i.e. clinical utility. We conclude that while the routine use of PRSs hold great promise, translational research is still needed before they should enter mainstream clinical practice.

Effects of screening strategies to detect carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence on the effects of screening strategies to detect carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. We conducted searches in CENTRAL, PUBMED, Embase, Epistemonikos, and in multiple databases available in the Virtual Health Library (LILACS, Scielo, WHO IBECS, and PAHO IBECS). All the searches covered the period until 4 June 2021. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned standardized form. When possible, we intended to conduct meta-analyses using a random-effect model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence (CoE) and summarized the results using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 57,451 references. No randomized trials were identified. Sixteen studies (one controlled before-after study and 15 interrupted time series) met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in tertiary care general hospitals from the United States, Europe, and Asia. Eleven studies included adult patients hospitalized in general wards and intensive care units, one was carried out in a neonatal intensive care unit, two in hematology or oncology units, and one in a solid organ transplantation department. Eleven studies were conducted in the setting of an outbreak. Regarding the detection strategy used, all studies included screening strategies for high-risk patients at the moment of admission and 7 studies reported a contact surveillance strategy. Most studies were conducted in settings where infection prevention and control measures were concomitantly installed or reinforced. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis, so the results were presented as a narrative synthesis. Most studies showed a decline in the prevalence of both infection and colonization rates after the implementation of a policy of active surveillance, but the CoE is low. Screening strategies may result in little to no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality and the length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence may favor the use of surveillance culture to carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria, but its quality is poor, so solid conclusions cannot be drawn. Well-conducted randomized trials or high-quality quasi-experimental studies are needed to improve the certainty of the existing evidence. These studies should assess the effect of the addition of screening strategies as a single intervention and measure clinically important outcomes such as infection, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

American Society of Hematology, ABHH, ACHO, Grupo CAHT, Grupo CLAHT, SAH, SBHH, SHU, SOCHIHEM, SOMETH, Sociedad Panameña de Hematología, Sociedad Peruana de Hematología, and SVH 2022 guidelines for prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical and medical patients and long-distance travelers in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common disease in Latin American settings. Implementation of international guidelines in Latin American settings requires additional considerations. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidelines about VTE prevention for Latin American patients, clinicians, and decision makers. METHODS: We used the GRADE ADOLOPMENT method to adapt recommendations from 2 American Society of Hematology (ASH) VTE guidelines (Prevention of VTE in Surgical Patients and Prophylaxis for Medical Patients). ASH and 12 local hematology societies formed a guideline panel composed of medical professionals from 10 countries in Latin America. Panelists prioritized 20 questions relevant to the Latin American context. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence reviews of health effects conducted for the original ASH guidelines and summarized information about factors specific to the Latin American context, that is, values and preferences, resources, accessibility, feasibility, and impact on health equity. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 21 recommendations. In comparison with the original guideline, 6 recommendations changed direction and 4 recommendations changed strength. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline ADOLOPMENT project highlighted the importance of contextualization of recommendations in other settings, based on differences in values, resources, feasibility, and health equity impact.

High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 detection and prolonged viral shedding in stools: A systematic review and cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To: 1. Describe the frequency of viral RNA detection in stools in a cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 2. Perform a systematic review to assess the clearance time in stools of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in two centers between March and May 2020. We included SARS-CoV-2 infected patients of any age and severity. We collected seriated nasopharyngeal swabs and stool samples to detect SARS-CoV-2. After, we performed a systematic review of the prevalence and clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in stools (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42020192490). We estimated prevalence using a random-effects model. We assessed clearance time by using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: We included 32 patients; mean age was 43.7±17.7 years, 43.8% were female, and 40.6% reported gastrointestinal symptoms. Twenty-five percent (8/32) of patients had detectable viral RNA in stools. The median clearance time in stools of the cohort was 11[10-15] days. Systematic review included 30 studies (1392 patients) with stool samples. Six studies were performed in children and 55% were male. The pooled prevalence of viral detection in stools was 34.6% (twenty-four studies, 1393 patients; 95%CI:25.4-45.1); heterogeneity was high (I2:91.2%, Q:208.6; p≤0.001). A meta-regression demonstrates an association between female-gender and lower presence in stools (p=0.004). The median clearance time in stools was 22 days (nineteen studies, 140 patients; 95%CI:19-25). After 34 days, 19.9% (95%CI:11.3-29.7) of patients have a persistent detection in stools. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in stools is a frequent finding. The clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in stools is prolonged and it takes longer than nasopharyngeal secretions.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review.

Objective: To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective review. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021). Main outcome measures: Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Results: Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded-the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons. Conclusion: No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months-an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

Definition of Uveitis Refractory to Treatment: A Systematic Review in the Absence of a Consensus.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the different definition of refractoriness in uveitis in the literature. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature in order to identify definitions of refractory noninfectious uveitis in adult patients. A search strategy in the databases of MEDLINE and Scopus was used to find articles published between January 2005 and October 2018. RESULTS: Definitions of corticosteroids-refractoriness were related to two main concepts: persistence of inflammation despite the use of corticosteroid and recurrences above a dosage threshold. In terms of immunomodulatory therapy and biologic agents, we observed a great variety of definitions: persistence of inflammation, number of attacks, side effects or complications, symptoms, and best-corrected visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review demonstrate the current lack of consensus on the definition for refractory uveitis, regardless of the treatment being used and revealed a new terminology based on a comprehensive and operational definition for each specific category of refractoriness.

Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review.

AIM: The objectives of this scoping review are to identify the challenges to conducting evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic and to propose some recommendations addressing the identified gaps. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was followed to map the literature published on the challenges and solutions of conducting evidence synthesis using the Joanna Briggs Methodology of performing scoping review. We searched several databases from the start of the Pandemic in December 2019 until 10th June 2021. RESULTS: A total of 28 publications was included in the review. The challenges cited in the included studies have been categorised into four distinct but interconnected themes including: upstream, Evidence synthesis, downstream and contextual challenges. These challenges have been further refined into issues with primary studies, databases, team capacity, process, resources, and context. Several proposals to improve the above challenges included: transparency in primary studies registration and reporting, establishment of online platforms that enables collaboration, data sharing and searching, the use of computable evidence and coordination of efforts at an international level. CONCLUSION: This review has highlighted the importance of including artificial intelligence, a framework for international collaboration and a sustained funding model to address many of the shortcomings and ensure we are ready for similar challenges in the future.