An umbrella review of the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing in infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic values of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in infectious diseases (IDs). AIM: This umbrella analysis aimed to assess the potential risk of bias in existing SRs and to summarize the published diagnostic values of NGS in different IDs. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023 for SRs assessing the diagnostic validity of NGS for IDs. Two investigators independently determined review eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated reporting quality, risk of bias, methodological quality, and evidence certainty in the included SRs. RESULTS: Eleven SRs were analyzed. Most SRs exhibited a moderate level of reporting quality, while a serious risk of bias was observed in all SRs. The diagnostic performance of NGS in detecting pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection was notably robust, showing excellent sensitivity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, very low certainty) and specificity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97, very low certainty). NGS exhibited high specificity for central nervous system infection, bacterial meningoencephalitis, and tuberculous meningitis. The sensitivity to these infectious diseases was moderate. NGS demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for multiple infections and pulmonary infections. CONCLUSION: This umbrella analysis indicates that NGS is a promising technique for diagnosing pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection with excellent sensitivity and specificity. More high-quality original research and SRs are needed to verify the current findings.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding the Core Outcome Set (COS) development.

BACKGROUND: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) working group proposed core outcome sets (COS) to address the heterogeneity in outcome measures in clinical studies. According to the recommendations of COMET, performing systematic reviews (SRs) usually was the first step for COS development. However, the SRs that serve as a basis for COS are not specifically appraised by organizations such as COMET regarding their quality. Here, we investigated the status of SRs related to development of COS and evaluated their methodological quality. METHODS: We conducted a search on PubMed to identify SRs related to COS development published from inception to May 2022. We qualitatively summarized the disease included in SR topics, and the studies included in the SRs. We evaluated the methodological quality of the SRs using AMSTAR 2.0 and compared the overall quality of SRs with and without protocols using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: We included 175 SRs from 23 different countries or regions, and they mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease (n = 19, 10.86%), injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes (n = 18, 10.29%), digestive system disease (n = 16, 9.14%), nervous system disease (n = 15, 8.57%), and genitourinary system disease (n = 15, 8.57%). Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The assessment results on the basis of AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ''critically low'' to ''low'' in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P = .017). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of published SRs regarding COS development was poor. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers to carefully select the disease topic and strictly adhere to the requirements of optimal methodology when conducting a SR for the establishment of a COS.

Efficacy of biological agents combined with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Food allergy affects a large population throughout the world. Recently, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been reported as an effective treatment for severe food allergy. Although OIT was successful in numerous trials in desensitisation, adverse events including anaphylaxis during OIT frequently occur. Additionally, some patients fail to be desensitised after OIT and the response to treatment is often not sustained. As a further adjunctive therapy to facilitate OIT, the role of biological agents has been identified. For example, efficacy and safety of omalizumab as an adjuvant therapy of OIT has become apparent through some RCTs and observational studies. Interest towards this topic is growing worldwide, and ongoing trials will provide additional data on the biologics in food allergy.We aim to systematically analyse the efficacy and safety of OIT combined with biological agents for food allergy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper provides a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytical studies using an aggregate approach following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Subsequently, two independent authors will perform abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. As the researchers will not identify the individual patients included in the studies, they do not need to acquire ethics approval. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022373015.

Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture and usual care for Antiandrogen-Induced hot fLashes in prostate cancer (AVAIL): study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Hot flashes are the common and debilitating symptom among prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Strong evidence from multiple rigorously designed studies indicated that pharmacological option such as venlafaxine provides partial relief, but the tolerability is poor when dose is not tapered. Hence, alternative therapy is needed. Previous studies reported that acupuncture may be helpful in the management of hot flashes. However, the insufficient randomized controlled trial limited the quality of evidence. METHODS: Five hospitals will recruit 120 acupuncture naïve patients with moderate-to-severe hot flashes after prostate cancer received ADT in China from February 2023 to December 2024. Participants will be randomly 2:1:1 allocated to the 18 sessions of verum acupuncture at true acupuncture points plus usual care, 18 sessions of non-penetrating sham acupuncture at non-acupuncture points plus usual care, or usual care alone over 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure is the change of mean weekly hot flashes symptom severity score (HFSSS) at the end of treatment compared with baseline. EXPECTED RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We will be able to measure the effectiveness of acupuncture for patients with PCa suffering from ADT-induced hot flashes and whether acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture and usual care. The proposed acupuncture treatment might provide an alternative option for those patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05069467).

Association between Antibiotic Exposure and the Risk of Rash in Children with Infectious Mononucleosis: a Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Present evidence suggests that the administration of antibiotics, particularly aminopenicillins, may increase the risk of rash in children with infectious mononucleosis (IM). This retrospective, multicenter cohort study of children with IM was conducted to explore the association between antibiotic exposure in IM children and the risk of rash. A robust error generalized linear regression was performed to address the potential cluster effect, as well as confounding factors such as age and sex. A total of 767 children (aged from 0 to 18 years) with IM from 14 hospitals in Guizhou Province were included in the final analysis. The regression analysis implied that exposure to antibiotics was associated with a significantly increased incidence of overall rash in IM children (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], ~1.04 to 2.08; P = 0.029). Of 92 overall rash cases, 43 were probably related to antibiotic exposure: two cases (4.08%) in the amoxicillin-treated group and 41 (8.15%) in the group treated with other antibiotics. Regression analysis indicated that the risk of rash induced by amoxicillin in IM children was similar to that induced by other penicillins (AOR, 1.12; 95% CI, ~0.13 to 9.67), cephalosporins (AOR, 2.45; 95% CI, ~0.43 to 14.02), or macrolides (AOR, 0.91; 95% CI, ~0.15 to 5.43). Antibiotic exposure may be associated with an increased risk of overall rash in IM children, but amoxicillin was not found to be associated with any increased risk of rash during IM compared to other antibiotics. We suggest that clinicians be vigilant against the occurrence of rash in IM children receiving antibiotic therapy, rather than indiscriminately avoiding prescribing amoxicillin.

High versus low blood pressure targets for cardiac surgery while on cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery is performed worldwide. Most types of cardiac surgery are performed using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Cardiac surgery performed with CPB is associated with morbidities. CPB needs an extracorporeal circulation that replaces the heart and lungs, and performs circulation, ventilation, and oxygenation of the blood. The lower limit of mean blood pressure to maintain blood flow to vital organs increases in people with chronic hypertension. Because people undergoing cardiac surgery commonly have chronic hypertension, we hypothesised that maintaining a relatively high blood pressure improves desirable outcomes among the people undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of higher versus lower blood pressure targets during cardiac surgery with CPB. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search of databases was November 2021 and trials registries in January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a higher blood pressure target (mean arterial pressure 65 mmHg or greater) with a lower blood pressure target (mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg) in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were 1. acute kidney injury, 2. cognitive deterioration, and 3. all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 4. quality of life, 5. acute ischaemic stroke, 6. haemorrhagic stroke, 7. length of hospital stay, 8. renal replacement therapy, 9. delirium, 10. perioperative transfusion of blood products, and 11. perioperative myocardial infarction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 737 people compared a higher blood pressure target with a lower blood pressure target during cardiac surgery with CPB. A high blood pressure target may result in little to no difference in acute kidney injury (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.08; I² = 72%; 2 studies, 487 participants; low-certainty evidence), cognitive deterioration (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.90; I² = 49%; 3 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported haemorrhagic stroke. Although a high blood pressure target may increase the length of hospital stay slightly, we found no differences between a higher and a lower blood pressure target for the other secondary outcomes. We also identified one ongoing RCT which is comparing a higher versus a lower blood pressure target among the people who undergo cardiac surgery with CPB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A high blood pressure target may result in little to no difference in patient outcomes including acute kidney injury and mortality. Given the wide CIs, further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of a higher blood pressure target among those who undergo cardiac surgery with CPB.

Oral pharmacological treatments for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background: Pharmacological treatments for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) are empirically used. However, the quantitative comparative effectiveness and safety of multiple pharmacological treatments is lacking. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 22, 2022. Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more oral pharmacological treatments for patients with CP/CPPS were included. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were independently screened by four reviewers. Primary outcomes were efficacy (the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index [NIH-CPSI] total score, pain score, urinary score, and quality of life score [QoL]) and safety (adverse events). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020184106. Findings: 25 studies (3514 patients) assessed 26 treatments. Low to very low quality evidence indicated that doxazosin (Mean difference [MD], -11.4, 95% Credible interval [CrI], -17.5 to -5.1) and the doxazosin, ibuprofen, and thiocolchicoside combination (MD, -11.6, CrI, -18.1 to -5.3) were significantly more effective than placebo in the NIH-CPSI total score. Other NIH-CPSI relative outcomes (pain, urinary, and QoL scores) showed a similar pattern. Low and very low quality evidence suggested that combination treatment including doxazosin, ibuprofen, and thiocolchicoside (odds ratios [OR], 3.2, CrI, 0.5 to 19.3) and the tamsulosin and dapoxetine combination (OR, 6.0, CrI, 0.7 to 67.3) caused more adverse events. In half of all comparisons regarding NIH-CPSI pain scores and quality of life scores, heterogeneity was minimal or low. Heterogeneity was high in both NIH-CPSI total symptom scores (I2  = 78.0%) and pain scores (I2  = 87. 0%) for tamsulosin versus placebo. There was also high heterogeneity in NIH-CPSI urine scores for the combination of tamsulosin and ciprofloxacin versus tamsulosin (I2  = 66.8%), tamsulosin and levofloxacin versus tamsulosin (I2  = 93.3%), and tamsulosin versus placebo (I2  = 83%). Interpretation: Pharmacological treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in CP/CPPS. Future studies could personalise therapy for individuals according to specific symptoms and identify non-pharmacological targets for CP/CPPS. Funding: Dr Jiani Wu received funding for this project from the China Association for Science and Technology (2017QNRC001), the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (ZZ13-YQ-027), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82105037).

Probiotics for the prevention of Hirschsprung-associated enterocolitis.

BACKGROUND: Hirschsprung-associated enterocolitis (HAEC) is a leading cause of serious morbidity and potential mortality in children with Hirschsprung's disease (HD). People with HAEC suffer from intestinal inflammation, and present with diarrhoea, explosive stools, and abdominal distension. Probiotics are live microorganisms with beneficial health effects, which can optimise gastrointestinal function and gut flora. However, the efficacy and safety of probiotic supplementation in the prevention of HAEC remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of probiotic supplements used either alone or in combination with pharmacological interventions on the prevention of Hirschsprung-associated enterocolitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, the China BioMedical Literature database (CBM), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and Clinical Trials Registry-India, from database inception to 27 February 2022. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews for any additional trails. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics and placebo, or any other non-probiotic intervention, for the prevention of HAEC were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies; disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third review author. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, with a total of 122 participants. We judged the overall risk of bias as high. We downgraded the evidence due to risk of bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding) and small sample size. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of probiotics on the occurrence of HAEC (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.43; I² = 74%; 2 studies, 120 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found one included study that did not measure serious adverse events and one included study that reported no serious adverse events related to probiotics. Probiotics may result in little to no difference between probiotics and placebo in relation to the severity of children with HAEC at Grade I (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.16; I² = 25%; 2 studies, 120 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effects of probiotics on the severity of HAEC at Grade II are very uncertain (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 136.58; I² = 86%; 2 studies, 120 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the evidence suggests that probiotics results in little to no difference in relation to the severity of HAEC at Grade III (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.45; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 120 participants; low-certainty evidence). No overall mortality or withdrawals due to adverse events were reported. Probiotics may result in little to no difference in the recurrence of episodes of HAEC compared to placebo (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.00; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not enough evidence to assess the efficacy or safety of probiotics for the prevention of Hirschsprung-associated enterocolitis when compared with placebo. The presence of low- to very-low certainty evidence suggests that further well-designed and sufficiently powered RCTs are needed to clarify the true efficacy of probiotics.

Effects of Acupressure on Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: The research aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the ability of acupressure to reduce anxiety. Design: Randomized controlled trials were obtained through a search of electronic medical databases (four in English and one in Chinese) from inception to October 5, 2020. Two authors searched the databases, evaluated studies' methodological quality, and performed data extraction independently. The final studies for analysis were identified after discussion with the third author. Results: We obtained 27 studies for our systematic review and meta-analysis. Eight studies had a low overall risk of bias, and 13 had some bias concerns with methodological quality. According to the results, acupressure significantly reduced patient anxiety (standardized mean difference = 1.152; 95% confidence interval: 0.847-1.459, p < 0.001), and the study heterogeneity was high (Q = 299.74, p < 0.001, I2 = 91.333%). Two studies reported acupressure-associated adverse events. We also performed a sensitivity analysis by omitting one outlier study, which had the largest effect size; however, high heterogeneity remained (I2 = 87.816%). A subgroup analysis revealed significant differences between participant types (Q = 46.573, p < 0.001), levels of methodological quality (Q = 6.228, p = 0.044), and massage equipment (Q = 4.642, p = 0.031). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that acupressure can alleviate anxiety. Acupressure was more effective for inpatients and preoperative patients when finger massage was applied. In individuals with anxiety and a stable hemodynamic status, acupressure could be a promising treatment option. However, the substantial heterogeneity across studies means that any inference from the results should be performed cautiously.

Rapid evidence synthesis approach for limits on the search date: How rapid could it be?

Rapid reviews have been widely employed to support timely decision-making, and limiting the search date is the most popular approach in published rapid reviews. We assessed the accuracy and workload of search date limits on the meta-analytical results to determine the best rapid strategy. The meta-analyses data were collected from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We emulated the rapid reviews by limiting the search date of the original CDSR to the recent 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 7, 5, and 3 years, and their results were compared to the full meta-analyses. A random sample of 10% was drawn to repeat the literature search by the same timeframe limits to measure the relative workload reduction (RWR). The relationship between accuracy and RWR was established. We identified 21,363 meta-analyses of binary outcomes and 7683 meta-analyses of continuous outcomes from 2693 CDSRs. Our results suggested that under a maximum tolerance of 5% and 10% on the bias of magnitude, a limit on the recent 20 years can achieve good accuracy and at the same time save the most workload. Under the tolerance of 15% and 20% on the bias, a limit on the recent 10 years and 15 years could be considered. Limiting the search date is a valid rapid method to produce credible evidence for timely decisions. When conducting rapid reviews, researchers should consider both the accuracy and workload to make an appropriate decision.

The Efficacy and Safety of Revefenacin for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review.

Background Revefenacin (REV) is a novel once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic review incorporating a dose-response meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of REV. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and Wanfang database were searched from their inception to April 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the efficacy and safety of REV in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Outcomes consisted of the mean change in trough Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). A dose-response meta-analysis using the robust error meta-regression method was conducted. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. Results Nine RCTs (3,121 participants) were included in this systematic review. The meta-analyses indicated that 175 µg/day REV could significantly improve the trough FEV1 (MD=143.67, 95%CI: 129.67 to 157.68; I2=96%; 809 participants; studies=4; low quality) without increasing the risk of AEs (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.81 to 1.18; I2=34%; 2,286 participants; studies=7; low quality) or SAEs (OR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.55 to 1.46; I2=0%; 2,318 participants; studies=7; very low quality) compared to placebo. Furthermore, the effect of REV in increasing trough FEV1 was dose-dependent with an effective threshold of 88 µg/day (R2 = 0.7017). Nevertheless, only very low-quality to low-quality evidence showed that REV at a dose of 175 µg/day was inferior to tiotropium regarding the long-term efficacy, and its safety profile was not superior to tiotropium or ipratropium. Conclusion Current evidence shows that REV is a promising option for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. Due to most evidence graded as low quality, further studies are required to compare the efficacy, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness between REV and other LAMAs in different populations. Clinical Trial Registration: [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42020182793].

Methodological quality for systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of systematic reviews assessed the safety of surgical interventions over time. How well these systematic reviews were designed and conducted determines the reliability of evidence. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the safety of surgical interventions. METHODS: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews of surgical interventions with safety as the exclusive outcome from 1st-Jan, 2015 to 1st-Jan, 2020. The methodological quality of eligible systematic reviews was evaluated according to the AMSTAR 2.0 instrument. The primary outcomes were the number of methodological weaknesses and the global methodological quality. The proportion of each methodological weakness among eligible systematic reviews was compared by three pre-defined stratification variables. The absolute difference of the proportion (PD) was used as the effect estimator, with the two-tailed z-test for the significance. RESULTS: We identified 127 systematic reviews from 18,636 records. None (n = 0, 0.00%) of them could be rated as "high" in terms of the global methodological quality; in contrast, they were either rated as "low" (n = 18, 14.17%) or as "critically low" (n = 109, 85.83%). The median number of methodological weaknesses of these systematic reviews was 8 (interquartile range, IQR: 6 to 9), in which 4 (IQR: 2 to 4) were critical weaknesses. Systematic reviews that used any reporting guideline (e.g., domain 13, PD = -0.22, 95% CI: - 0.39, - 0.06; p = 0.01) and developed a protocol in advance (e.g., domain 6, PD = -0.20, 95% CI: - 0.39, - 0.01; p = 0.04) were less likely to have methodological weakness in some domains but not for the rest (e.g., domain 8, PD = 0.04, 95% CI: - 0.14, 0.21; p = 0.68; with protocol vs. without). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of current systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions was poor. Further efforts, for example, encouraging researchers to develop a protocol in advance, are needed to enhance the methodological quality of these systematic reviews.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

Inconsistencies in study eligibility criteria are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in PROSPERO.

The author should give careful consideration to the study eligibility criteria of systematic reviews (SRs) and follow it after review protocol development to reduce the possibility of manipulation of inclusion. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of differences in study eligibility criteria between non-Cochrane SRs and their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO, and determined what changes were involved as well as whether those changes were explained. We searched the protocols registered on PROSPERO platform in the year of 2018 and then selected these protocols which full-text have been published up to June 9, 2020. A random sample (n = 100) was included. Published full-texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. The following five key components of study eligibility criteria were compared: participants, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), types of study design, and outcome(s). A total of 90% of included SRs exhibited differences in study eligibility criteria, and 59/90 altered in no less than two key components. Only one SR reported and explained the rationale for changes to the individual key component (the definition of exposure). The "Outcome(s)" exhibited the greatest variation, with changes in 61% of the SRs. The "Comparator(s)/control" exhibited the smallest variation, with changes in 20% of the SRs. Differences in study eligibility criteria between the non-Cochrane SRs and their protocols registered on PROSPERO were widespread but were seldom explained. Authors themselves, PROSPERO platform, as well as peer-review journals and their peer-reviewers should play a role in further improving transparency.

Methodological issues of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of sleep medicine: A meta-epidemiological study.

An increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have been published in the field of sleep medicine. We evaluated the methodological issues of these SRMAs. A protocol was developed in advance. Three databases were searched from inception to October 2019 for SRMAs published in major academic journals of sleep medicine that assessed healthcare interventions. The AMSTAR 2.0 instrument was used to evaluate the methodological issues and a multivariable regression analysis was conducted to investigate potential measures associated with methodological validity. We identified 163 SRMAs. The median number of missing safeguards of these SRMAs was 7 out of 16 (Interquartile range, IQR: 6-9), and on average, two of these missing safeguards were critical weaknesses. Our regression analysis suggested that SRMAs published in recent years (ß = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.08, 0.24; p = 0.002), with the first author from Europe (ß = 0.08; 95%CI: 0.02, 0.14; p = 0.013) tend to have higher relative methodological ranks. In conclusion, the methodological validity for current SRMAs in sleep medicine was poor. Further efforts to improve the methodological validity are needed.

The reporting checklist for public versions of guidelines: RIGHT-PVG.

BACKGROUND: Public or patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) are derivative documents that "translate" recommendations and their rationale from clinical guidelines for health professionals into a more easily understandable and usable format for patients and the public. PVGs from different groups and organizations vary considerably in terms of quality of their reporting. In order to address this issue, we aimed to develop a reporting checklist for developers of PVGs and other potential users. METHODS: First, we collected a list of potential items through reviewing a sample of PVGs, existing guidance for developing and reporting PVGs or other similar evidence-based patient tools, as well as qualitative studies on original studies of patients' needs about the content and/or reporting of information in PVGs or similar evidence-based patient tools. Second, we conducted a two-round Delphi consultation to determine the level of consensus on the items to be included in the final reporting checklist. Third, we invited two external reviewers to provide comments on the checklist. RESULTS: We generated the initial list of 45 reporting items based on a review of a sample of 30 PVGs, four PVG guidance documents, and 46 relevant studies. After the two-round Delphi consultation, we formed a checklist of 17 items grouped under 12 topics for reporting PVGs. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-PVG reporting checklist provides an international consensus on the important criteria for reporting PVGs.

Many meta-analyses of rare events in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were underpowered.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis is a statistical method with the ability to increase the power for statistical inference, while it may still face the problem of being underpowered. In this study, we investigated the power to detect certain true effects for published meta-analyses of rare events. METHODS: We extracted data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analyses of rare events from January 2003 to May 2018. We retrospectively estimated the power to detect a 10-50% relative risk reduction (RRR) of eligible meta-analyses. The proportion of meta-analyses achieved a sufficient power (≥0.8) were estimated. RESULTS: We identified 4,177 meta-analyses. The median power to detect 10%, 30%, and 50% RRR were 0.06 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.05 to 0.06), 0.08 (IQR: 0.06 to 0.15), and 0.17 (IQR: 0.10 to 0.42), respectively); the corresponding proportion of meta-analyses that reached sufficient power were 0.32%, 3.68%, and 11.81%. Meta-analyses incorporating data from more studies had higher probability to achieve a sufficient power (rate ratio = 2.49, 95% CI: 1.76, 3.52, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most of the meta-analyses of rare events in Cochrane systematic reviews were underpowered. Future meta-analysis of rare events should report the power of the results to support informative conclusions.

Quality of interventional animal experiments in Chinese journals: compliance with ARRIVE guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. RESULTS: The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited ≤5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.