Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 12 to 18 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in adolescents is an international public health priority. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is over 25% in North and South America, Australia, most of Europe, and the Gulf region. Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve strategies that promote healthy diets or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective, and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years since the previous version of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in adolescents by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in adolescents (mean age 12 years and above but less than 19 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 74 studies (83,407 participants); 54 studies (46,358 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Sixty studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (57 studies), followed by home (nine studies), the community (five studies) and a primary care setting (three studies). Fifty-one interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over 28 months. Sixty-two studies declared non-industry funding; five were funded in part by industry. Dietary interventions versus control The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of dietary interventions on body mass index (BMI) at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 0.06; 3 studies, 605 participants), medium-term follow-up (MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11; 3 studies, 900 participants), and standardised BMI (zBMI) at long-term follow-up (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.10; 2 studies, 1089 participants); all very low-certainty evidence. Compared with control, dietary interventions may have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.07; 1 study, 44 participants); zBMI at short-term (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01; 5 studies, 3154 participants); and zBMI at medium-term (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.21; 1 study, 112 participants) follow-up; all low-certainty evidence. Dietary interventions may have little to no effect on serious adverse events (two studies, 377 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions versus control Compared with control, activity interventions do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1780 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce zBMI at medium- (MD 0, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05; 6 studies, 5335 participants) or long-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both moderate-certainty evidence. Activity interventions do not reduce zBMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 4718 participants; high-certainty evidence), but may reduce BMI slightly at medium-term (MD -0.32, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.11; 3 studies, 2143 participants) and long-term (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.05; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both low-certainty evidence. Seven studies (5428 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: two reported injuries relating to the exercise component of the intervention and five reported no effect of intervention on reported serious adverse events. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 11 studies, 3429 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably do not reduce BMI at medium-term (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; 8 studies, 5612 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.16; 6 studies, 8736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) follow-up. They may have little to no effect on zBMI in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.02; 3 studies, 515 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and they may not reduce zBMI at medium-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.01; 6 studies, 3511 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; 7 studies, 8430 participants; low-certainty evidence) follow-up. Four studies (2394 participants) reported data on serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence): one reported an increase in weight concern in a few adolescents and three reported no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence demonstrates that dietary interventions may have little to no effect on obesity in adolescents. There is low-certainty evidence that activity interventions may have a small beneficial effect on BMI at medium- and long-term follow-up. Diet plus activity interventions may result in little to no difference. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent obesity in this age group may result in little to no difference in serious adverse effects. Limitations of the evidence include inconsistent results across studies, lack of methodological rigour in some studies and small sample sizes. Further research is justified to investigate the effects of diet and activity interventions to prevent childhood obesity in community settings, and in young people with disabilities, since very few ongoing studies are likely to address these. Further randomised trials to address the remaining uncertainty about the effects of diet, activity interventions, or both, to prevent childhood obesity in schools (ideally with zBMI as the measured outcome) would need to have larger samples.

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in children is an international public health priority given the prevalence of the condition (and its significant impact on health, development and well-being). Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve behavioural change strategies that promote healthy eating or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years, since the previous version of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in children by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in children (mean age 5 years and above but less than 12 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were body mass index (BMI), zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 172 studies (189,707 participants); 149 studies (160,267 participants) were included in meta-analyses. One hundred forty-six studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (111 studies), followed by the community (15 studies), the home (eight studies) and a clinical setting (seven studies); one intervention was conducted by telehealth and 31 studies were conducted in more than one setting. Eighty-six interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over four years. Non-industry funding was declared by 132 studies; 24 studies were funded in part or wholly by industry. Dietary interventions versus control Dietary interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; 5 studies, 2107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at medium-term follow-up (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; 9 studies, 6815 participants; low-certainty evidence) or zBMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01; 7 studies, 5285 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions, compared with control, probably have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.13; 2 studies, 945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and zBMI at short- or medium-term follow-up (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 8 studies, 3695 participants; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 9 studies, 7048 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (1913 participants; very low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: one reported serious adverse events (e.g. allergy, behavioural problems and abdominal discomfort) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; four reported no effect. Activity interventions versus control Activity interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI and zBMI at short-term or long-term follow-up (BMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.13; 14 studies, 4069 participants; zBMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 6 studies, 3580 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI long-term: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 8 studies, 8302 participants; zBMI long-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 6 studies, 6940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions likely result in a slight reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 16 studies, 21,286 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; 13 studies, 20,600 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (21,278 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events; one study reported two minor ankle sprains and one study reported the incident rate of adverse events (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; nine studies reported no effect. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, may result in a slight reduction in BMI and zBMI at short-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01; 27 studies, 16,066 participants; zBMI: MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 26 studies, 12,784 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely result in a reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.00; 21 studies, 17,547 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 24 studies, 20,998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary and activity interventions compared with control may result in little to no difference in BMI and zBMI at long-term follow-up (BMI: MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16; 16 studies, 22,098 participants; zBMI: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01; 22 studies, 23,594 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nineteen studies (27,882 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: four studies reported occurrence of serious adverse events (e.g. injuries, low levels of extreme dieting behaviour); 15 studies reported no effect. Heterogeneity was apparent in the results for all outcomes at the three follow-up times, which could not be explained by the main setting of the interventions (school, home, school and home, other), country income status (high-income versus non-high-income), participants' socioeconomic status (low versus mixed) and duration of the intervention. Most studies excluded children with a mental or physical disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence in this review demonstrates that a range of school-based 'activity' interventions, alone or in combination with dietary interventions, may have a modest beneficial effect on obesity in childhood at short- and medium-term, but not at long-term follow-up. Dietary interventions alone may result in little to no difference. Limited evidence of low quality was identified on the effect of dietary and/or activity interventions on severe adverse events and health inequalities; exploratory analyses of these data suggest no meaningful impact. We identified a dearth of evidence for home and community-based settings (e.g. delivered through local youth groups), for children living with disabilities and indicators of health inequities.

Common challenges and suggestions for risk of bias tool development: a systematic review of methodological studies.

OBJECTIVES: To review the findings of studies that have evaluated the design and/or usability of key risk of bias (RoB) tools for the assessment of RoB in primary studies, as categorized by the Library of Assessment Tools and InsTruments Used to assess Data validity in Evidence Synthesis Network (a searchable library of RoB tools for evidence synthesis): Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASessment Tool (PROBAST) , Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative (QUADAS-C), Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies (QUAPAS), Risk Of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E), and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) RoB checklist. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of methodological studies. We conducted a forward citation search from the primary report of each tool, to identify primary studies that aimed to evaluate the design and/or usability of the tool. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion. We extracted tool features into Microsoft Word and used NVivo for document analysis, comprising a mix of deductive and inductive approaches. We summarized findings within each tool and explored common findings across tools. RESULTS: We identified 13 tool evaluations meeting our inclusion criteria: PROBAST (3), RoB2 (3), ROBINS-I (4), and QUADAS-2 (3). We identified no evaluations for the other tools. Evaluations varied in clinical topic area, methodology, approach to bias assessment, and tool user background. Some had limitations affecting generalizability. We identified common findings across tools for 6/14 themes: (1) challenging items (eg, RoB2/ROBINS-I "deviations from intended interventions" domain), (2) overall RoB judgment (concerns with overall risk calculation in PROBAST/ROBINS-I), (3) tool usability (concerns about complexity), (4) time to complete tool (varying demands on time, eg, depending on number of outcomes assessed), (5) user agreement (varied across tools), and (6) recommendations for future use (eg, piloting) and development (add intermediate domain answer to QUADAS-2/PROBAST; provide clearer guidance for all tools). Of the other eight themes, seven only had findings for the QUADAS-2 tool, limiting comparison across tools, and one ("reorganization of questions") had no findings. CONCLUSION: Evaluations of key RoB tools have posited common challenges and recommendations for tool use and development. These findings may be helpful to people who use or develop RoB tools. Guidance is necessary to support the design and implementation of future RoB tool evaluations.

Clinical effectiveness of point of care tests for diagnosing urinary tract infection: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Point of care tests (POCTs) have the potential to improve the urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnostic pathway, as they can provide a diagnosis quickly in near-patient settings, and some also identify causative pathogens/antimicrobial sensitivity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical impact, accuracy, and technical characteristics of POCT for diagnosing UTI. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative summary and bivariate random effects meta-analyses to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases, two clinical trial registries, study reports and review reference lists, and websites. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials/non-randomized studies and diagnostic test accuracy studies published since 2000. PARTICIPANTS: People with suspected UTI. TESTS: Rapid tests (results <40 minutes): Astrego PA-100 system, Lodestar DX, Uriscreen, UTRiPLEX. Culture tests (results <24 hours): Flexicult Human, ID Flexicult, Diaslide, Dipstreak, Chromostreak, Uricult, Uricult Trio, Uricult Plus. REFERENCE STANDARD: Any. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of Bias-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-C. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials evaluated Flexicult Human (one against standard care; one against ID Flexicult). No difference was reported in antibiotic use concordant with culture results (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.58-1.20) or appropriate antibiotic prescribing (OR 1.44 95% CI 1.03-1.99). Initial antibiotic prescribing was lower with Flexicult than standard care (OR 0.56 95% CI 0.35-0.88). No difference for other measures of antibiotic use, symptom duration, patient enablement, or resource use. Fifteen studies reported accuracy data. Limited data were available, with most POCT evaluated in single studies or not evaluated at all. Uriscreen (four studies), Uricult Trio (three studies), Flexicult Human (four studies), and ID Flexicult (two studies) had modest sensitivity and specificity. POCTs were easier to use and interpret than standard culture. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of POCTs in UTI diagnosis. Due to the rapid development of POCT, this review should be updated regularly.

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.

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

Substantial heterogeneity found in reporting mortality in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets in COMET database.

OBJECTIVE: To explore mortality outcome usage in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets for research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cochrane PICO searches identified Cochrane reviews (published January 2015-March 2021) including mortality outcomes. These outcomes were categorized according to terminology used: all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, infant mortality, maternal mortality, survival. Mortality outcomes in Core Outcome Sets (published until 2019 on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database) were also extracted and categorized. RESULTS: In total, 2454 mortality outcomes were reported in 49% (1978/3999) of Cochrane reviews published January 2015-March 2021: all-cause (37%), infant (23%), maternal (11%), survival (10%), cause-specific (9%). Due to reviews not specifying mortality outcome type or including studies reporting no data, 11% (273/2208) remained uncategorized. Infant mortality and maternal mortality were frequently used together in reviews reporting two mortality outcomes. In total, 226 mortality outcomes were reported in 37% (165/449) of Core Outcome Sets: all-cause (48%), survival (27%), cause-specific (12%), infant (9%), maternal (4%). Mortality measurement timing varied. CONCLUSION: Mortality outcome usage varies in Cochrane reviews and Core Outcome Sets. This is problematic for evidence-based decision-making. Greater standardization is necessary for effective utilization of health research.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Dispositional Mindfulness and Psychological Health: a Systematic Review.

Interest in the influence of dispositional mindfulness (DM) on psychological health has been gathering pace over recent years. Despite this, a systematic review of this topic has not been conducted. A systematic review can benefit the field by identifying the terminology and measures used by researchers and by highlighting methodological weaknesses and empirical gaps. We systematically reviewed non-interventional, quantitative papers on DM and psychological health in non-clinical samples published in English up to June 2016, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted using PsycINFO, PubMED, Medline and Embase, and 93 papers met the inclusion criteria. Within these, three main themes emerged, depicting the relationship between DM and psychological health: (1) DM appears to be inversely related to psychopathological symptoms such as depressive symptoms, (2) DM is positively linked to adaptive cognitive processes such as less rumination and pain catastrophizing and (3) DM appears to be associated with better emotional processing and regulation. These themes informed the creation of a taxonomy. We conclude that research has consistently shown a positive relationship between DM and psychological health. Suggestions for future research and conceptual and methodological limitations within the field are discussed.