Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis. RCT identification remains challenging because of limitations in their indexation in major databases and potential language bias. Scientific production in Latin American nursing is steadily increasing, but little is known about its design or main features. We aimed to identify the extent of evidence from RCTs in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams and evaluate their main characteristics, including potential risk of bias. DESIGN: Scoping review with risk of bias assessment. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review including a comprehensive electronic search in five relevant databases. We completed a descriptive data analysis and a risk of bias assessment of eligible studies using Cochrane's guidance. RESULTS: We identified 1784 references of which 47 were RCTs published in 40 journals. Twenty (42.6%) RCTs were published in journals in English. Chronic diseases were the most common health conditions studied (29.7%). Fifteen (31.9%) RCTs had a high risk of bias. Thirty (75%) journals were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) catalog and 5 (16.7%) were journals classified under nursing category. Twenty-one (52.5%) journals explicitly required CONSORT checklist recommendations for RCTs reporting. CONCLUSION: Publication of RCTs in nursing by Latin American authors has increased. Most journals where RCTs are published are in English and not specific to nursing. Searches in journals of other disciplines may be necessary to facilitate identification of RCTs in nursing. CONSORT statements need to be actively promoted to facilitate rigorous methodology and reporting of RCTs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study highlights the need for an increased research focus on RCTs in nursing in Latin America, and the importance of enhancing the reporting quality of these studies to support evidence-based nursing practice.

Condom use and HIV testing among adults in Switzerland: repeated national cross-sectional surveys 2007, 2012, and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention is important for guiding national sexual health programmes for both the general population and key populations. The objectives of this study were to examine trends and patterns of condom use at last intercourse and lifetime HIV testing in 2007, 2012 and 2017 in Switzerland, and to explore factors associated with these behaviours in men and women with opposite-sex partners and with same sex partners. METHODS: We analysed data from the 2007, 2012 and 2017 Swiss Health Survey. For each time point, outcome and population group, we conducted a descriptive analysis of weighted data and conducted multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and compared outcomes between the timepoints. RESULTS: In total, 46,320 people were interviewed: 21,847 men and 23,141 women, who reported having sex only with partners of the opposite sex, 633 men who reported sex with a male partner and 699 women who reported sex with a female partner. Among the three surveys the prevalence of condom did not change but varied from 22 to 26% of men and 15 to 21% in women with only opposite-sex partners (aOR men, 0.93, 95% CI 0.82, 1.06; women 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11). In men with any same sex partner the prevalence of condom use was 40% in 2007, 33% in 2012 and 54% in 2017 (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 0.97, 3.34). In multivariable analysis, the factor most strongly associated with condom use was sex with an occasional partner at last intercourse. HIV testing ever increased across all three survey years in people with opposite sex partners: 2017 vs. 2007, aOR men with only opposite-sex partners 1.64 (95% CI 1.49, 1.82), women with only opposite-sex partners 1.67 (1.51, 1.85), men with any same sex partner 0.98 (0.49, 1.96), women with any same sex partner 1.31 (0.74, 2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of condom use, and HIV testing should continue and contribute to the development of the national sexual health programme. Stronger promotion of condoms for people with opposite-sex partners might be needed, since overall condom use at last intercourse has not changed since 2007.

Tool to assess risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH).

OBJECTIVE: There is no standard tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies. For the purposes of a living systematic review during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a tool to evaluate RoB in studies measuring the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH) and tested inter-rater reliability. METHODS: We decided on items and signalling questions to include in RoB-PrevMH through iterative discussions. We tested the reliability of assessments by different users with two sets of prevalence studies. The first set included a random sample of 50 studies from our living systematic review. The second set included 33 studies from a systematic review of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorders, major depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We assessed the inter-rater agreement by calculating the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic for each item. RESULTS: RoB-PrevMH consists of three items that address selection bias and information bias. Introductory and signalling questions guide the application of the tool to the review question. The inter-rater agreement for the three items was 83%, 90% and 93%. The weighted kappa scores were 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and 0.32 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RoB-PrevMH is a brief, user-friendly and adaptable tool for assessing RoB in studies on prevalence of mental health disorders. Initial results for inter-rater agreement were fair to substantial. The tool's validity, reliability and applicability should be assessed in future projects.

How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide.

BACKGROUND: The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature. METHODS: In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review. RESULTS: We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

Ensemble of deep learning language models to support the creation of living systematic reviews for the COVID-19 literature.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented amount of scientific publications, growing at a pace never seen before. Multiple living systematic reviews have been developed to assist professionals with up-to-date and trustworthy health information, but it is increasingly challenging for systematic reviewers to keep up with the evidence in electronic databases. We aimed to investigate deep learning-based machine learning algorithms to classify COVID-19-related publications to help scale up the epidemiological curation process. METHODS: In this retrospective study, five different pre-trained deep learning-based language models were fine-tuned on a dataset of 6365 publications manually classified into two classes, three subclasses, and 22 sub-subclasses relevant for epidemiological triage purposes. In a k-fold cross-validation setting, each standalone model was assessed on a classification task and compared against an ensemble, which takes the standalone model predictions as input and uses different strategies to infer the optimal article class. A ranking task was also considered, in which the model outputs a ranked list of sub-subclasses associated with the article. RESULTS: The ensemble model significantly outperformed the standalone classifiers, achieving a F1-score of 89.2 at the class level of the classification task. The difference between the standalone and ensemble models increases at the sub-subclass level, where the ensemble reaches a micro F1-score of 70% against 67% for the best-performing standalone model. For the ranking task, the ensemble obtained the highest recall@3, with a performance of 89%. Using an unanimity voting rule, the ensemble can provide predictions with higher confidence on a subset of the data, achieving detection of original papers with a F1-score up to 97% on a subset of 80% of the collection instead of 93% on the whole dataset. CONCLUSION: This study shows the potential of using deep learning language models to perform triage of COVID-19 references efficiently and support epidemiological curation and review. The ensemble consistently and significantly outperforms any standalone model. Fine-tuning the voting strategy thresholds is an interesting alternative to annotate a subset with higher predictive confidence.

Expectations and Experiences of a Group of Patients Enrolled in an Educational Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis at a Specialized Care Center in Colombia.

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease diagnosed in a productive stage of life. Patients with RA experience changes in their musculoskeletal system, overall health and quality of life. It has been identified that patients with RA do not have appropriate knowledge about their condition. Educational programs can provide new knowledge, accompaniment, and closer follow-up to improve empowerment and quality of life in patients with RA. Purpose: To describe rheumatoid arthritis patients' experiences, perceptions, and expectations when enrolling on a multicomponent educational program in a specialized RA setting. Patients and Methods: A qualitative study was done. Patients with RA who attended a specialized center and enrolled in an educational program participated in two focus groups. The focus group discussions and the interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, analyzed, and emerging themes were constructed. Results: Thirty-one participants were included in the focus groups. The median age was 60 years IQR (54-67), 92% were female. Two relevant categories emerged: first, the experience of being diagnosed with RA. Second, the program's ability to empower participants with knowledge and the possibility of transferring knowledge to other patients with the same condition. In addition, patients gave a high score to the expectations regarding the educational program. Conclusion: Understanding patients' expectations when enrolling in an educational program allows educators and clinicians to understand their motivations to create tailored programs that can contribute to acquiring empowerment in the educational process and managing their disease. Stakeholders should consider patients' expectations when implementing these interventions for patients with RA to adapt the intervention according to the patient's context and needs, which will directly affect the patient's adherence and lead to better use and allocation of resources for educational activities.

Vulvovaginal yeast infections during pregnancy and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy are common and can cause extensive inflammation, which could contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Symptomatic yeast infections are likely to cause more inflammation than asymptomatic. The objective of this study was to investigate associations between symptomatic and asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We did a systematic review and searched eight databases until 01 July 2022. We included studies reporting on pregnant women with and without laboratory confirmed vulvovaginal yeast infection and preterm birth or eight other perinatal outcomes. We used random effects meta-analysis to calculate summary odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals for the association between yeast infection and outcomes. We described findings from studies with multivariable analyses. We assessed the risk of bias using published tools. RESULTS: We screened 3909 references and included 57 studies. Only 22/57 studies reported information about participant vulvovaginal symptoms. Preterm birth was an outcome in 35/57 studies (49,161 women). In 32/35 studies with available data, the summary OR from univariable analyses was 1.01 (95% CI 0.84-1.21, I2 60%, prediction interval 0.45-2.23). In analyses stratified by symptom status, we found ORs of 1.44 (95% CI 0.92-2.26) in two studies with ≥ 50% symptomatic participants, 0.84 (95% CI 0.45-1.58) in seven studies with < 50% symptomatic participants, and 1.12 (95% CI 0.94-1.35) in four studies with asymptomatic participants. In three studies with multivariable analysis, adjusted ORs were greater than one but CIs were compatible with there being no association. We did not find associations between vulvovaginal yeast infection and any secondary outcome. Most studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain and only three studies controlled for confounding. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find strong statistical evidence of an increased risk for preterm birth or eight other adverse perinatal outcomes, in pregnant women with either symptomatic or asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infection. The available evidence is insufficient to make recommendations about testing and treatment of vulvovaginal yeast infection in pregnancy. Future studies should assess vulvovaginal symptoms, yeast organism loads, concomitant vaginal or cervical infections, and microbiota using state-of-the-art diagnostics. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020197564.

A tool to assess risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH).

Objective: Biases affect how certain we are about the available evidence, however no standard tool for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies exists. For the purposes of a living systematic review on prevalence of mental health disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a RoB tool to evaluate prevalence studies in mental health (RoB-PrevMH) and tested interrater reliability. Methods: We reviewed existing RoB tools for prevalence studies until September 2020, to develop a tool for prevalence studies in mental health. We tested the reliability of assessments by different users of RoB-PrevMH in 83 studies stemming from two systematic reviews of prevalence studies in mental health. We assessed the interrater agreement by calculating the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic for each item. Results: RoB-PrevMH consists of three items that address selection bias and information bias. Introductory and signaling questions guide the application of the tool to the review question. The interrater agreement for the three items was 83%, 90% and 93%. The weighted kappa was 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and 0.32 (95% CI -0.04 to -0.63), respectively. Conclusions: We developed a brief, user friendly, and adaptable tool for assessing RoB in studies on prevalence of mental health disorders. Initial results for interrater agreement were fair to substantial. The tool's validity, reliability, and applicability should be assessed in future projects.

Guía de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de la rinosinusitis crónica: versión completa / Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: full version

La rinosinusitis (RS) se define como la inflamación de la nariz y los senos paranasales con dos o más síntomas como bloqueo/obstrucción/congestión o secreción nasal (goteo nasal anterior/posterior) más dolor/presión facial y/o reducción o pérdida del sentido del olfato. Adicional, se tienen en cuenta los hallazgos objetivos como la presencia de pólipos nasales y/o descarga mucopurulenta en meato medio y/o edema u obstrucción de la mucosa en el meato medio en la endoscopia nasal. Se pueden considerar o no, los cambios tomográficos como cambios mucosos en el complejo osteomeatal y la mucosa de los senos paranasales. Se reconoce que los síntomas tienen alta sensibilidad, pero baja especificidad, de ahí la necesidad de hallazgos objetivos.

Rhinosinusitis (RS) is defined as inflammation of the nose and sinuses with two or more symptoms such as blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge. with two or more symptoms such as nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge (anterior/posterior runny nose) plus facial pain/pressure and/or reduction or loss of the sense of smell. sense of smell. In addition, objective findings such as the presence of nasal polyps and/or nasal presence of nasal polyps and/or mucopurulent discharge from the middle meatus and/or edema or mucosal obstruction or mucosal obstruction in the middle meatus on nasal endoscopy. Tomographic changes may or may not tomographic changes may or may not be considered as mucosal changes in the osteomeatal complex and mucosal osteomeatal complex and the mucosa of the paranasal sinuses. It is recognized that the symptoms symptoms have high sensitivity but low specificity, hence the need for objective findings. findings.

Guía de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de la rinosinusitis crónica: versión corta para profesionales de la salud. Colombia-2023 / Clinical practice guideline for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis: short version for health care professionals. Colombia-2023

La rinosinusitis (RS) se define como la inflamación de la nariz y los senos paranasales con dos o más síntomas como bloqueo/obstrucción/congestión o secreción nasal (goteo nasal anterior/posterior) más dolor/presión facial y/o reducción o pérdida del sentido del olfato. Adicional, se tienen en cuenta los hallazgos objetivos como la presencia de pólipos nasales y/o descarga mucopurulenta en meato medio y/o edema u obstrucción de la mucosa en el meato medio en la endoscopia nasal.

Rhinosinusitis (RS) is defined as inflammation of the nose and sinuses with two or more symptoms such as blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge with two or more symptoms such as nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge (anterior/posterior runny nose) plus facial pain/pressure and/or reduced or lost sense of smell sense of smell. Additionally, objective findings such as the presence of nasal polyps and/or nasal presence of nasal polyps and/or mucopurulent discharge in the middle meatus and/or edema or mucous or mucosal obstruction in the middle meatus on nasal endoscopy.

Vaccines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table.  MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).

Finding and evaluating randomised controlled trials in nursing conducted by Spanish research teams: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the main characteristics and the potential risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in nursing conducted by Spanish research teams. METHODS: Scoping review of an electronic search in three major databases (date of search: October 2021). For the eligible studies, both descriptive data, and data to assess the potential risk of bias, were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Of 3391 references retrieved, 199 were eligible. These RCTs were published in 122 journals, most of them in English (101, 82.1%) and were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) (107, 87.7%). Moreover, 32 (26.2%) of those included in the JCR were classified under nursing. Two thirds (81, 66.4%) of the journals followed the CONSORT guidelines. A total of 65 RCTs (33.7%) had a high overall risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Most of the identified RCTs were published in journals not specific to nursing and in English language. Also, shortcomings in RCT design and reporting were observed despite recommendations to adhere the CONSORT guidelines. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive identification of RCTs in nursing may require searching in journals other than nursing-related. RCTs from Spanish research teams are more likely to be published in international journals published in English. CONSORT should be strongly advised to encourage proper design and reporting of RCTs.

Studies of prevalence: how a basic epidemiology concept has gained recognition in the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence measures the occurrence of any health condition, exposure or other factors related to health. The experience of COVID-19, a new disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, has highlighted the importance of prevalence studies, for which issues of reporting and methodology have traditionally been neglected. OBJECTIVE: This communication highlights key issues about risks of bias in the design and conduct of prevalence studies and in reporting them, using examples about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. SUMMARY: The two main domains of bias in prevalence studies are those related to the study population (selection bias) and the condition or risk factor being assessed (information bias). Sources of selection bias should be considered both at the time of the invitation to take part in a study and when assessing who participates and provides valid data (respondents and non-respondents). Information bias appears when there are systematic errors affecting the accuracy and reproducibility of the measurement of the condition or risk factor. Types of information bias include misclassification, observer and recall bias. When reporting prevalence studies, clear descriptions of the target population, study population, study setting and context, and clear definitions of the condition or risk factor and its measurement are essential. Without clear reporting, the risks of bias cannot be assessed properly. Bias in the findings of prevalence studies can, however, impact decision-making and the spread of disease. The concepts discussed here can be applied to the assessment of prevalence for many other conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to strengthen methodological research and improve assessment of the risk of bias and the quality of reporting of studies of prevalence in all fields of research should continue beyond this pandemic.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS: The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Mental health of migrants with pre-migration exposure to armed conflict: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to armed conflict has been associated with negative mental health consequences. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder among migrants exposed to armed conflict. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched online databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, PsycInfo [via Ovid], PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection) for relevant observational studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and June 28, 2021. We included studies that used standardised psychiatric interviews to assess generalised anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder among migrants (refugees or internally displaced persons; aged ≥18 years) with pre-migration exposure to armed conflict. We excluded studies in which exposure to armed conflict could not be ascertained, studies that included a clinical population or people with chronic diseases that can trigger the onset of mental disease, and studies published before 1994. We used a random effects model to estimate each mental health disorder's pooled prevalence and random effects meta-regression to assess sources of heterogeneity. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias for each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020209251. FINDINGS: Of the 13 935 studies identified, 34 met our inclusion criteria; these studies accounted for 15 549 migrants. We estimated a prevalence of current post-traumatic stress disorder of 31% (95% CI 23-40); prevalence of current major depressive disorder of 25% (17-34); and prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder of 14% (5-35). Younger age was associated with a higher prevalence of current post-traumatic stress disorder (odds ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·90-0·99]), lifetime post-traumatic stress disorder (0·88 [0·83-0·92]), and current generalised anxiety disorder (0·87 [0·78-0·97]). A longer time since displacement was associated with a lower lifetime prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (0·88 [0·81-0·95]) and major depressive disorder (0·81 [0·77-0·86]). Migrating to a middle-income (8·09 [3·06-21·40]) or low-income (39·29 [11·96-129·70]) country was associated with increased prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder. INTERPRETATION: Migrants who are exposed to armed conflict are at high risk of mental health disorders. The mental health-care needs of migrants should be assessed soon after resettlement, and adequate care should be provided, with particular attention paid to young adults. FUNDING: Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (Horizon 2020-COFUND), MinCiencias (Colombia), and Swiss National Science Foundation.

Guía de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de la leucemia linfocítica crónica: guía para profesionales de la salud / Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a guide for health care professionals

La leucemia linfocítica crónica (LLC) es una neoplasia caracterizada por la proliferación y acumulación clonal de células B maduras, que típicamente co-expresan los antígenos de superficie CD5 ­ CD23, dentro de la sangre, la médula ósea, los ganglios linfáticos, el bazo y otros tejidos . Esta patología es considerada el tipo de leucemia más común en personas adultas en países occidentales, y se considera una enfermedad de adultos mayores, con una mediana de edad al diagnóstico de 70 años .

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a neoplasm characterized by the proliferation and clonal accumulation of mature B cells, which typically co-express the CD5 - CD23 surface antigens, within the blood, bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen and other tissues. This pathology is considered the most common type of leukemia in adults in Western countries, and is considered a disease of older adults, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years.

Guía de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de la leucemia linfocítica crónica / Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

La guía está dirigida al personal clínico asistencial especializado que brinda tratamiento a los pacientes con diagnóstico de LLC, en el contexto del SGSSS colombiano. Incluye a los siguientes profesionales potenciales: Hematólogos y Hematólogos-oncólogos. También está dirigida a los centros asistenciales que brindan cuidado a los pacientes con diagnóstico de LLC y a quienes toman decisiones administrativas, tanto en el medio hospitalario como en las aseguradoras, pagadores del gasto en la salud y en la generación de políticas de salud. Finalmente, las recomendaciones pueden ser de interés para pacientes con LLC, sus familiares y cuidadores. Se considera pertinente aclarar que la guía ofrecerá recomendaciones específicas frente a las preguntas definidas, y excede el alcance de esta, definir las competencias profesionales del equipo involucrado en el manejo de esta patología.

The guide is aimed at specialized clinical care personnel who provide treatment to patients diagnosed with CLL, in the context of the Colombian SGSSS. It includes the following potential professionals: hematologists and hematologist-oncologists. It is also addressed to health care centers that provide care to patients diagnosed with CLL and to administrative decision makers, both in the hospital environment and in the insurance companies, health care payers and health policy makers. Finally, the recommendations may be of interest to CLL patients, their families and caregivers. It is considered pertinent to clarify that the guide will offer specific recommendations in response to the questions defined, and it is beyond the scope of this guide to define the professional competencies of the team involved in the management of this pathology.