Interventions to improve latent and active tuberculosis treatment completion rates in underserved groups in low incidence countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: People in underserved groups have higher rates of tuberculosis (TB) and poorer treatment outcomes compared with people with no social risk factors. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to identify interventions that improve TB treatment adherence or completion rates. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies of any design focusing on interventions to improve adherence or completion of TB treatment in underserved populations in low incidence countries. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched (January 2015 to December 2023). CHARTING METHODS: Piloted data extraction forms were used. Findings were tabulated and reported narratively. Formal risk of bias assessment or synthesis was not undertaken. RESULTS: 47 studies were identified. There was substantial heterogeneity in study design, population, intervention components, usual care and definition of completion rates. Most studies were in migrants or refugees, with fewer in populations with other risk factors (eg, homelessness, imprisonment or substance abuse). Based on controlled studies, there was limited evidence to suggest that shorter treatment regimens, video-observed therapy (compared with directly observed therapy), directly observed therapy (compared with self-administered treatment) and approaches that include tailored health or social support beyond TB treatment may lead to improved outcomes. This evidence is mostly observational and subject to confounding. There were no studies in Gypsy, Roma and Traveller populations, or individuals with mental health disorders and only one in sex workers. Barriers to treatment adherence included a lack of knowledge around TB, lack of general health or social support and side effects. Facilitators included health education, trusted relationships between patients and healthcare staff, social support and reduced treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is limited, and few controlled studies exist. Further high-quality research in well-defined underserved populations is needed to confirm the limited findings and inform policy and practice in TB management. Further qualitative research should include more people from underserved groups.

Pressure-garment therapy for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury.

BACKGROUND: Burn damage to skin often results in scarring; however in some individuals the failure of normal wound-healing processes results in excessive scar tissue formation, termed 'hypertrophic scarring'. The most commonly used method for the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scarring is pressure-garment therapy (PGT). PGT is considered standard care globally; however, there is continued uncertainty around its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pressure-garment therapy for the prevention of hypertrophic scarring after burn injury. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trials registers on 8 June 2023 with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PGT (alone or in combination with other scar-management therapies) with scar management therapies not including PGT, or comparing different PGT pressures or different types of PGT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion using predetermined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies in this review (1179 participants), 14 of which (1057 participants) presented useable data. The sample size of included studies ranged from 17 to 159 participants. Most studies included both adults and children. Eight studies compared a pressure garment (with or without another scar management therapy) with scar management therapy alone, five studies compared the same pressure garment at a higher pressure versus a lower pressure, and two studies compared two different types of pressure garments. Studies used a variety of pressure garments (e.g. in-house manufactured or a commercial brand). Types of scar management therapies included were lanolin massage, topical silicone gel, silicone sheet/dressing, and heparin sodium ointment. Meta-analysis was not possible as there was significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies. Main outcome measures were scar improvement assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) or the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) (or both), pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence to therapy. Studies additionally reported a further 14 outcomes, mostly individual scar parameters, some of which contributed to global scores on the VSS or POSAS. The amount of evidence for each individual outcome was limited. Most studies had a short follow-up, which may have affected results as the full effect of any therapy on scar healing may not be seen until around 18 months. PGT versus no treatment/lanolin We included five studies (378 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on whether PGT improves scars as assessed by the VSS compared with no treatment/lanolin. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, adverse events, and adherence. No study used the POSAS or assessed quality of life. One additional study (122 participants) did not report useable data. PGT versus silicone We included three studies (359 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT compared with silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, adherence, and other scar parameters. It is possible that silicone may result in fewer adverse events or better adherence compared with PGT but this was also based on very low-certainty evidence. PGT plus silicone versus no treatment/lanolin We included two studies (200 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on whether PGT plus silicone improves scars as assessed by the VSS compared with no treatment/lanolin. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, and adverse events. No study used the POSAS or assessed quality of life or adherence. PGT plus silicone versus silicone We included three studies (359 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT plus silicone compared with silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence. PGT plus scar management therapy including silicone versus scar management therapy including silicone We included one study (88 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT plus scar management therapy including silicone versus scar management therapy including silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence. High-pressure versus low-pressure garments We included five studies (262 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of high pressure versus low pressure PGT on adverse events and adherence. No study used the VSS or the POSAS or assessed pain, pruritus, or quality of life. Different types of PGT (Caroskin Tricot + an adhesive silicone gel sheet versus Gecko Nanoplast (silicone gel bandage)) We included one study (60 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of Caroskin Tricot versus Gecko Nanoplast on the POSAS, pain, pruritus, and adverse events. The study did not use the VSS or assess quality of life or adherence. Different types of pressure garments (Jobst versus Tubigrip) We included one study (110 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the adherence to either Jobst or Tubigrip. This study did not report any other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend using either PGT or an alternative for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury. PGT is already commonly used in practice and it is possible that continuing to do so may provide some benefit to some people. However, until more evidence becomes available, it may be appropriate to allow patient preference to guide therapy.

Umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of dysplasia and cancer at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Results Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, P =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, P =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, P <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Conclusions Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-initiated follow-up after cancer.

BACKGROUND: The traditional cancer follow-up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer. METHODS: Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool-2. Meta-analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient-related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient-led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long-term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424).

Acute burn injuries associated with long-term mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that the pathophysiological impact of acute burn injuries may have chronic health consequences. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between burn injuries and long-term mortality in patients surviving to initial discharge from hospital. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were searched on 22 October 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared long-term mortality amongst burn survivors to non-injured controls from the general population. When the same output metrics related to mortality were reported, meta-analyses were undertaken using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: Following an extensive literature search, six studies (seven articles) were identified for inclusion. They were predominantly based in high-income countries, with each comparing burns' survivors to matched non-injured controls from the general population. The four studies included in the meta-analysis had a combined unadjusted odds ratio of 2.65 (1.84 - 3.81; 95 % confidence interval) and adjusted mortality rate ratio of 1.59 (1.31 - 1.93; 95 % confidence interval). Thus, burn survivors demonstrated greater mortality rates when compared to their non-injured counterparts. Similar findings were illustrated in the remaining studies not included in the meta-analysis, with the exception of one study which found no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that acute burn injuries may be associated with greater long-term mortality rates (unadjusted and adjusted). The underlying mechanism is unclear and further work is required to establish the role of certain factors such as biological ageing processes, to improve outcomes for burn patients.

Interventions for the prevention of adrenal crisis in adults with primary adrenal insufficiency: a systematic review.

Objective: The incidence of adrenal crisis (AC) remains high, particularly for people with primary adrenal insufficiency, despite the introduction of behavioural interventions. The present study aimed to identify and evaluate available evidence of interventions aiming to prevent AC in primary adrenal insufficiency. Design: This study is a systematic review of the literature and theoretical mapping. Methods: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Health Management Information Consortium and trial registries were searched from inception to November 2021. Three reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Two reviewers appraised the studies for the risk of bias. Results: Seven observational or mixed methods studies were identified where interventions were designed to prevent AC in adrenal insufficiency. Patient education was the focus of all interventions and utilised the same two behaviour change techniques, 'instruction on how to perform a behaviour' and 'pharmacological support'. Barrier and facilitator themes aiding or hindering the intervention included knowledge, behaviour, emotions, skills, social influences and environmental context and resources. Most studies did not measure effectiveness, and assessment of knowledge varied across studies. The study quality was moderate. Conclusion: This is an emerging field with limited studies available. Further research is required in relation to the development and assessment of different behaviour change interventions to prevent AC.

Home Non-Invasive Ventilation in COPD: A Global Systematic Review.

Background: Uncertainty remains around the benefit of home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and those with a recent exacerbation (post-hospital). The aim of this systematic review was to: (1) update the evidence base with studies published in any language, including Chinese language studies not indexed in standard medical databases, and (2) explore the impact of additional studies on the evidence base. Methods: Standard systematic review methodology was used for identifying and appraising studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies reporting mortality, hospitalizations, exacerbations, quality of life, adverse events, or adherence were included. Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken for mortality and hospitalizations, with studies sub-grouped by population and study design. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the effect of including studies from Western and non-Western countries. Results: A total of 103 studies were included, substantially more than in previous reviews. There was no significant effect on mortality for the stable population. There was a benefit from NIV for the post-hospital population based on non-randomized studies, or RCTs from non-Western countries. There was a small but significant reduction in hospital admissions (1-2/year) with NIV across all sub-groups, and a variable reduction in duration of stay with greater reductions in studies from China. Conclusions: The evidence base on home NIV is considerably larger than previously presented. While NIV may reduce hospital admissions and improve quality of life, there is still little evidence of a reduction in mortality, regardless of country. Individual participant data analysis may clarify which patients would benefit most from NIV.

Cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited. METHODS: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence. RESULTS: At the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Domiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.

Impact of obstetric unit closures, travel time and distance to obstetric services on maternal and neonatal outcomes in high-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review (1) The effect of obstetric unit (OU) closures on maternal and neonatal outcomes and (2) The association between travel distance/time to an OU and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review of any quantitative studies with a comparison group. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health and grey literature were searched. METHODS: Eligible studies explored the impact of closure of an OU or the effect of travel distance/time on prespecified maternal or neonatal outcomes. Only studies of women giving birth in high-income countries with universal health coverage of maternity services comparable to the UK were included. Identification of studies, extraction of data and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by at least two reviewers independently. The risk of bias checklist was based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis and synthesis was narrative, with key findings tabulated. RESULTS: 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. There was some evidence to suggest an increase in babies born before arrival following OU closures and/or associated with longer travel distances or time. This may be associated with an increased risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality, but this finding was not consistent across studies. Evidence on other maternal and neonatal outcomes was limited but did not suggest worse outcomes after closures or with longer travel times/distances. Interpretation of findings for some studies was hampered by concerns around how accurately exposures were measured, and/or a lack of adjustment for confounders or temporal changes. CONCLUSION: It is not possible to conclude from this review whether OU closure, increased travel distances or times are associated with worse outcomes for the mother or the baby. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017078503.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models.

AIMS: We assessed the performance of modelsf (risk scores) for predicting recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have undergone catheter ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic searches of bibliographic databases were conducted (November 2018). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development, validation, or impact assessment of a model for predicting AF recurrence after ablation. Model performance (discrimination and calibration) measures were extracted. The Prediction Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to clinical and methodological differences between studies, but c-statistics were presented in forest plots. Thirty-three studies developing or validating 13 models were included; eight studies compared two or more models. Common model variables were left atrial parameters, type of AF, and age. Model discriminatory ability was highly variable and no model had consistently poor or good performance. Most studies did not assess model calibration. The main risk of bias concern was the lack of internal validation which may have resulted in overly optimistic and/or biased model performance estimates. No model impact studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review suggests that clinical risk prediction of AF after ablation has potential, but there remains a need for robust evaluation of risk factors and development of risk scores.

Prognostic models for predicting incident or recurrent atrial fibrillation: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the arrhythmia most commonly diagnosed in clinical practice. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Prevalence of AF and complications of AF, estimated by hospitalisations, have increased dramatically in the last decade. Being able to predict AF would allow tailoring of management strategies and a focus on primary or secondary prevention. Models predicting recurrent AF would have particular clinical use for the selection of rhythm control therapy. There are existing prognostic models which combine several predictors or risk factors to generate an individualised estimate of risk of AF. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and compare model performance measures and predictive accuracy across different models and populations at risk of developing incident or recurrent AF. METHODS: Methods tailored to systematic reviews of prognostic models will be used for study identification, risk of bias assessment and synthesis. Studies will be eligible for inclusion where they report an internally or externally validated model. The quality of studies reporting a prognostic model will be assessed using the Prediction Study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Studies will be narratively described and included variables and predictive accuracy compared across different models and populations. Meta-analysis of model performance measures for models validated in similar populations will be considered where possible. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review to collate evidence from all studies reporting on validated prognostic models, or on the impact of such models, in any population at risk of incident or recurrent AF. The review may identify models which are suitable for impact assessment in clinical practice. Should gaps in the evidence be identified, research recommendations relating to model development, validation or impact assessment will be made. Findings will be considered in the context of any models already used in clinical practice, and the extent to which these have been validated. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42018111649 ).

Transoral tongue base mucosectomy for the identification of the primary site in the work-up of cancers of unknown origin: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and laser microsurgery (TLM) in the diagnosis and identification of the site of the unknown primary has become increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the use and efficacy of TORS and TLM for this indication. METHOD: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies employing TORS or TLM in diagnosis of the unknown primary tumor site in patients with cervical nodal metastases of squamous cell origin. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL were searched from inception to July 2018 for all studies that used TORS and or TLM in identifying the unknown primary. RESULTS: 251 studies were identified, of which 21 were eligible for inclusion. The primary tumour was identified by TORS/TLM in 78% of patients (433 out of 556). Tongue base mucosectomy (TBM) identified the primary in 222 of 427 cases (53%). In patients with negative physical examination, diagnostic imaging and PETCT, TBM identified the primary in 64% (95% CI 50, 79) cases. In patients who had negative CT/MRI imaging, negative PETCT and negative EUA and tonsillectomy, TBM identified a tongue base primary in 78% (95% CI 41, 92) cases. Haemorrhage, the commonest complication, was reported in 4.9% cases. Mean length of stay varied between 1.4 and 6.3 days. CONCLUSION: Tongue base mucosectomy, performed by TORS or TLM, is highly efficacious in identifying the unknown primary in the head and neck region.

Body image dissatisfaction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Little is known about the relationship between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and body image. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence on body image dissatisfaction in patients with IBD across four areas: (1) body image tools, (2) prevalence, (3) factors associated with body image dissatisfaction in IBD and (4) association between IBD and quality of life. METHODS: Two reviewers screened, selected, quality assessed and extracted data from studies in duplicate. EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched to April 2018. Study design-specific critical appraisal tools were used to assess risk of bias. Narrative analysis was undertaken due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies using a body image tool were included; 31 for prevalence and 16 and 8 for associated factors and association with quality of life, respectively. Studies reported mainly mean or median scores. Evidence suggested female gender, age, fatigue, disease activity and steroid use were associated with increased body image dissatisfaction, which was also associated with decreased quality of life. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review on body image in patients with IBD. The evidence suggests that body image dissatisfaction can negatively impact patients, and certain factors are associated with increased body image dissatisfaction. Greater body image dissatisfaction was also associated with poorer quality of life. However, the methodological and reporting quality of studies was in some cases poor with considerable heterogeneity. Future IBD research should incorporate measurement of body image dissatisfaction using validated tools.

Effect of regional versus general anaesthesia on postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Older patients with hip fractures who are undergoing surgery are at high risk of significant mortality and morbidity including postoperative delirium. It is unclear whether different types of anaesthesia may reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium. This systematic review will investigate the impact of anaesthetic technique on postoperative delirium. Other outcomes included mortality, length of stay, complications and functional outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled studies. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to June 2018. Web of Science and ZETOC databases were searched for conference proceedings. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked, and clinical trial registers were searched to identify ongoing trials. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if general and regional anaesthesia were compared in patients (aged 60 and over) undergoing hip fracture surgery, reporting primary outcome of postoperative delirium and secondary outcomes of mortality, length of hospital stay, adverse events, functional outcomes, discharge location and quality of life. Exclusion criteria were anaesthetic technique or drug not considered current standard practice; patients undergoing hip fracture surgery alongside other surgery and uncontrolled studies. RESULTS: One hundred and four studies were included. There was no evidence to suggest that anaesthesia type influences postoperative delirium or mortality. Some studies suggested a small reduction in length of hospital stay with regional anaesthesia. There was some evidence to suggest that respiratory complications and intraoperative hypotension were more common with general anaesthesia. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. All findings were described narratively and data were presented where possible in forest plots for illustrative purposes. CONCLUSIONS: While there was no evidence to suggest that anaesthesia types influence postoperative delirium, the evidence base is lacking. There is a need to ascertain the impact of type of anaesthesia on outcomes with an adequately powered, methodologically rigorous study. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015020166.

Body image dissatisfaction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a debilitating chronic disease characterised by inflammation and ulceration of the gastrointestinal tract. It is associated with a range of debilitating symptoms and reduced quality of life. People living with IBD may also be at risk of body image dissatisfaction (BID). BID is a distorted and negative view of the physical self, which in turn can adversely affect mental health and quality of life. To date, there have been no systematic reviews of the evidence on BID in IBD patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to clarify the evidence base on BID in *IBD patients including (i) the tools used to measure BID, (ii) the prevalence and severity of BID, (iii) the risk factors associated with BID and (iv) the relationship between BID and quality of life. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL) will be searched using a sensitive search strategy aiming to identify any quantitative study reporting on body image in the context of IBD. This will be supplemented by searches of ongoing trials registers and checking of reference lists. Studies will be assessed for eligibility using predetermined selection criteria for each question. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form, and risk of bias (quality) of included studies will be assessed based on checklists appropriate to the study designs identified. Key methodological steps will be undertaken in duplicate to minimise bias and error. Synthesis will be undertaken separately for the different systematic review sub-questions. Given the anticipated heterogeneity of evidence on each question, it is likely that synthesis will be mostly narrative. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review to collate the existing evidence on BID in IBD patients. Understanding the impact of BID, its relationship with quality of life, and which patients may be at greater risk, may ultimately lead to the development of interventions to prevent or treat BID and to better patient care. Any gaps in the identified evidence will help to inform the research agenda in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: (CRD42018060999).

Preclinical therapies to prevent or treat fracture non-union: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Non-union affects up to 10% of fractures and is associated with substantial morbidity. There is currently no single effective therapy for the treatment or prevention of non-union. Potential treatments are currently selected for clinical trials based on results from limited animal studies, with no attempt to compare results between therapies to determine which have the greatest potential to treat non-union. AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to define the range of therapies under investigation at the preclinical stage for the prevention or treatment of fracture non-union. Additionally, through meta-analysis, it aimed to identify the most promising therapies for progression to clinical investigation. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched from 1St January 2004 to 10th April 2017 for controlled trials evaluating an intervention to prevent or treat fracture non-union. Data regarding the model used, study intervention and outcome measures were extracted, and risk of bias assessed. RESULTS: Of 5,171 records identified, 197 papers describing 204 therapies were included. Of these, the majority were only evaluated once (179/204, 88%), with chitosan tested most commonly (6/204, 3%). Substantial variation existed in model design, length of survival and duration of treatment, with results poorly reported. These factors, as well as a lack of consistently used objective outcome measures, precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the variability and poor methodological reporting of current non-union research. The authors call for a consensus on the standardisation of animal models investigating non-union, and suggest journals apply stringent criteria when considering animal work for publication.

A systematic review of epigenetic biomarkers in progression from non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review is to identify and summarise studies which examine epigenetic biomarkers in patients with Barrett's oesophagus (BO) and their association with progression to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OADC). BO is a precursor lesion for OADC. There is no clinical test to predict patients who are likely to progress to OADC. An epigenetic biomarker could predict patients who are at high risk of progression from BO to OADC which could facilitate earlier diagnosis and spare those unlikely to develop cancer from regular invasive surveillance endoscopy. SETTING: A systematic search was conducted of the following databases: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, ISI Conference Proceedings Citation Index and the British Library's ZETOC. Studies were conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings. PARTICIPANTS: All studies measuring epigenetic change in patients over 18 years old who progressed from non-dysplastic BO to OADC were included. Genetic, in vitro and studies which did not measure progression in the same patient cohort were excluded. Study inclusion and risk of bias of individual eligible studies were assessed in duplicate by two reviewers using a modified Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. RESULTS: 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. 42 epigenetic markers were identified, and 5 studies developed models aiming to predict progression to OADC. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this systematic review is suggestive of a role for p16 as an epigenetic biomarker for the progression of BO to OADC. PROSPERO NUMBER: CRD42016038654.