Representation of Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Disease Medications: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, but their systematic underrepresentation in cardiovascular randomized clinical trials (RCTs) limits the generation of appropriate evidence to guide cardiovascular risk management (CVRM). Objective: To evaluate the underrepresentation of patients with CKD in cardiovascular RCTs, and to highlight evidence gaps in CVRM medications in this population. Evidence Review: A systematic search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov from February 2000 through October 2021 for RCTs with full-text publications. If no full-text publications were found in ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar were also searched. Eligible RCTs were those evaluating the effectiveness of antiplatelets, anticoagulants, blood pressure-lowering drugs, glucose-lowering drugs, or cholesterol-lowering drugs in adults with cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. Trials with a sample size of fewer than 100 patients were excluded. Findings: In total, 1194 RCTs involving 2 207 677 participants (mean [SD] age, 63 [6] years; 1 343 970 males [64%]) were included. Since 2000, the percentage of cardiovascular RCTs excluding patients with CKD has increased from 66% to 79% (74% overall [884 RCTs]). In 864 RCTs (72%), more patients were excluded than anticipated on safety grounds (63% [306] of trials required no dose adjustment, and 79% [561] required dose adjustment). In total, 158 RCTs (13%) reported results for patients with CKD separately (eg, in subgroup analyses). Significant evidence gaps exist in most CVRM interventions for patients with CKD, particularly for those with CKD stages 4 to 5. Twenty-three RCTs (2%) reported results for patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, 15 RCTs (1%) reported for patients receiving dialysis, and 1 RCT (0.1%) reported for recipients of kidney transplant. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review suggest that representation of patients with CKD in cardiovascular RCTs has not improved in the past 2 decades and that these RCTs excluded more patients with CKD than expected on safety grounds. Lack of reporting or underreporting of results for this patient population is associated with evidence gaps in the effectiveness of most CVRM medications in patients with all stages of CKD, particularly CKD stages 4 to 5.

Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether clinical trial register (CTR) searches can accurately identify a greater number of completed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) than electronic bibliographic database (EBD) searches for systematic reviews of interventions, and to quantify the number of eligible ongoing trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed an evaluation study and based our search for RCTs on the eligibility criteria of a systematic review that focused on the underrepresentation of people with chronic kidney disease in cardiovascular RCTs. We conducted a combined search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible RCTs registered up to June 1, 2023. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for publications of eligible RCTs published up to June 5, 2023. Finally, we compared the search results to determine the extent to which the two sources identified the same RCTs. RESULTS: We included 92 completed RCTs. Of these, 81 had results available. Sixty-six completed RCTs with available results were identified by both sources (81% agreement [95% CI: 71-88]). We identified seven completed RCTs with results exclusively by CTR search (9% [95% CI: 4-17]) and eight exclusively by EBD search (10% [95% CI: 5-18]). Eleven RCTs were completed but lacked results (four identified by both sources (36% [95% CI: 15-65]), one exclusively by EBD search (9% [95% CI: 1-38]), and six exclusively by CTR search (55% [95% CI: 28-79])). Also, we identified 42 eligible ongoing RCTs: 16 by both sources (38% [95% CI: 25-53]) and 26 exclusively by CTR search (62% [95% CI: 47-75]). Lastly, we identified four RCTs of unknown status by both sources. CONCLUSION: CTR searches identify a greater number of completed RCTs than EBD searches. Both searches missed some included RCTs. Based on our case study, researchers (eg, information specialists, systematic reviewers) aiming to identify all available RCTs should continue to search both sources. Once the barriers to performing CTR searches alone are targeted, CTR searches may be a suitable alternative.

Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software.

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper guides how to use supportive software for RRs.We strongly encourage the use of supportive software throughout RR production. Specifically, we recommend (1) using collaborative online platforms that enable working in parallel, allow for real-time project management and centralise review details; (2) using automation software to support, but not entirely replace a human reviewer and human judgement and (3) being transparent in reporting the methodology and potential risk for bias due to the use of supportive software.

Impact of antibiotics on gut microbiome composition and resistome in the first years of life in low- to middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate antimicrobial usage is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately burdened by AMR and young children are especially vulnerable to infections with AMR-bearing pathogens. The impact of antibiotics on the microbiome, selection, persistence, and horizontal spread of AMR genes is insufficiently characterized and understood in children in LMICs. This systematic review aims to collate and evaluate the available literature describing the impact of antibiotics on the infant gut microbiome and resistome in LMICs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this systematic review, we searched the online databases MEDLINE (1946 to 28 January 2023), EMBASE (1947 to 28 January 2023), SCOPUS (1945 to 29 January 2023), WHO Global Index Medicus (searched up to 29 January 2023), and SciELO (searched up to 29 January 2023). A total of 4,369 articles were retrieved across the databases. Duplicates were removed resulting in 2,748 unique articles. Screening by title and abstract excluded 2,666 articles, 92 articles were assessed based on the full text, and 10 studies met the eligibility criteria that included human studies conducted in LMICs among children below the age of 2 that reported gut microbiome composition and/or resistome composition (AMR genes) following antibiotic usage. The included studies were all randomized control trials (RCTs) and were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias for randomized studies tool. Overall, antibiotics reduced gut microbiome diversity and increased antibiotic-specific resistance gene abundance in antibiotic treatment groups as compared to the placebo. The most widely tested antibiotic was azithromycin that decreased the diversity of the gut microbiome and significantly increased macrolide resistance as early as 5 days posttreatment. A major limitation of this study was paucity of available studies that cover this subject area. Specifically, the range of antibiotics assessed did not include the most commonly used antibiotics in LMIC populations. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed that antibiotics significantly reduce the diversity and alter the composition of the infant gut microbiome in LMICs, while concomitantly selecting for resistance genes whose persistence can last for months following treatment. Considerable heterogeneity in study methodology, timing and duration of sampling, and sequencing methodology in currently available research limit insights into antibiotic impacts on the microbiome and resistome in children in LMICs. More research is urgently needed to fill this gap in order to better understand whether antibiotic-driven reductions in microbiome diversity and selection of AMR genes place LMIC children at risk for adverse health outcomes, including infections with AMR-bearing pathogens.

Effectiveness of FeNO-guided treatment in adult asthma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma control is generally monitored by assessing symptoms and lung function. However, optimal treatment is also dependent on the type and extent of airway inflammation. Fraction of exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive biomarker of type 2 airway inflammation, but its effectiveness in guiding asthma treatment remains disputed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain summary estimates of the effectiveness of FeNO-guided asthma treatment. DESIGN: We updated a Cochrane systematic review from 2016. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Subgroup analyses were performed based on asthma severity, asthma control, allergy/atopy, pregnancy and obesity. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register was searched on 9 May 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of a FeNO-guided treatment versus usual (symptom-guided) treatment in adult asthma patients. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs (2,116 patients), all showing high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Five RCTs reported support from a FeNO manufacturer. FeNO-guided treatment probably reduces the number of patients having ≥1 exacerbation (OR = 0.61; 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83; six RCTs; GRADE moderate certainty) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.54 to 0.82; six RCTs; moderate certainty), and may slightly improve Asthma Control Questionnaire score (MD = -0.10; 95%CI -0.18 to -0.02, six RCTs; low certainty), however, this change is unlikely to be clinically important. An effect on severe exacerbations, quality of life, FEV1, treatment dosage and FeNO values could not be demonstrated. There were no indications that effectiveness is different in subgroups of patients, although evidence for subgroup analysis was limited. CONCLUSIONS: FeNO-guided asthma treatment probably results in fewer exacerbations but may not have clinically important effects on other asthma outcomes.

Laboratory biomarkers of delayed cerebral ischemia following subarachnoid hemorrhage: A systematic review.

Delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) substantially contributes to disability and death in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients; however, its pathophysiology is incompletely understood and diagnostic and therapeutic strategies are lacking. Biomarkers may help to elucidate the pathophysiology, optimize early diagnosis, or provide treatment targets. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase on October 13, 2021, for studies that evaluated at least one laboratory biomarker in patients with DCI, using the most up-to-date definition of DCI as proposed by a panel of experts in 2010. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool. Biomarkers of clinical and radiological DCI were analyzed separately. Results were meta-analyzed if possible, otherwise narratively reviewed. Biomarkers were classified as significant, inconclusive, or nonsignificant. We defined validated biomarkers as those with significant results in meta-analyses, or in at least two studies using similar methodologies within the same time interval after SAH. The search yielded 209 articles with 724 different biomarkers; 166 studies evaluated 646 biomarkers of clinical DCI, of which 141 were significant and 7 were validated biomarkers (haptoglobulin 2-1 and 2-2, ADAMTS13, vWF, NLR, P-selectin, F2-isoprostane); 78 studies evaluated 165 biomarkers of radiological DCI, of which 63 were significant and 1 was a validated biomarker (LPR). Hence, this review provides a selection of seven biomarkers of clinical DCI and one biomarker of radiological DCI as most promising biomarkers of DCI. Future research should focus on determining the exact predictive, diagnostic, and therapeutic potentials of these biomarkers.

Family participation to enhance care and tackle health worker shortages in resource-limited hospitals: A systematic review.

Background: A growing global shortage of health workers is limiting access to health care, especially in resource-limited countries. Family participation in hospital care could enhance care while tackling health worker shortages. With the same resources, it might deliver additional and more personalised care. This review assessed the effect and safety of family participation interventions in the care of hospitalised adults in resource-limited settings and, ultimately, if it is a viable strategy to tackle health worker shortages. Methods: For this systematic review, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Global Health Library were searched from inception till April 7, 2022. Clinical studies were included if they described a family participation intervention for hospitalised adults, were performed in a low- or middle-income country and reported on a patient-related outcome. Data were collected on patient, family, staff and health service-related outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 and ROBINS-I tool. Results: From 4444 studies, six were included for narrative synthesis, with a total of 1794 participants. Four studies were performed in Asia and two in Africa; all were published between 2017 and 2022. In-hospital family participation interventions aimed at medication administration and adherence, delirium prevention, and palliative cancer care were successful in significantly improving patient outcomes. Involving family in post-stroke rehabilitation interventions showed no significant effect on mortality and long-term disability. Few data were reported on participating family members' outcomes or hospital staffing issues. None of the included studies showed harm from family participation. Conclusions: The limited data suggest that family participation can be effective and safe in specific contexts. However, more research is needed to determine the effect of family participation and justify further implementation. Family participation research for enhancing care while tackling health worker shortages should be a collaborative priority of researchers, health care professionals, funding agencies and policymakers. Registration: PROSPERO registration No. CRD42020205878.

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

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Evidence for pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk for patients with chronic kidney disease: a study protocol of an evidence map.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) require a personalised strategy for cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) to reduce their high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite their high risk, patients with CKD appear to be underrepresented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological CVRM interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk (pharmacological CVRM interventions). As a result, it remains unclear whether the efficacy of these interventions found in patients without CKD is similarly applicable to patients with CKD. This evidence map aims to provide an overview of the availability of the evidence from pharmacological CVRM trials for patients with CKD by assessing how often patients with reduced kidney function are specifically excluded or included from RCTs on pharmacological CVRM interventions and whether studies report efficacy estimates of interventions specifically for kidney patients. METHODS: We will perform a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant planned, ongoing, and completed RCTs on a broad range of CVRM medications after which we will retrieve the published protocols and papers via ClinicalTrials.gov itself, Embase, MEDLINE, or Google Scholar. We will include RCTs that investigate the efficacy of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, antihypertensives, glucose-lowering medication, and lipid-lowering medication on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and end-stage kidney disease in patients with a cardiovascular history or a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Two reviewers will independently screen trial records and their corresponding full-text publications to determine eligibility and extract data. Outcomes of interest are the exclusion of patients with reduced kidney function from RCTs and whether the study population was restricted to kidney patients or subgroup analyses were performed on kidney function. Results will be visualised in an evidence map. DISCUSSION: The availability of evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological CVRM interventions in patients with CKD might be limited. Hence, we will identify knowledge gaps for future research. At the same time, the availability of evidence, or lack thereof, might warrant caution from healthcare decision-makers in making strong recommendations based on the extrapolation of results from studies to patients who were explicitly excluded from participation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022296746.

Maxillomandibular Advancement and Upper Airway Stimulation for Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) and upper airway stimulation (UAS) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment. A MEDLINE and Embase database search of articles on MMA and/or UAS for OSA was conducted. Twenty-one MMA studies and nine UAS studies were included. All the MMA studies demonstrated a reduction in apnea hypopnea index (AHI) postoperatively, and success rates ranged from 41.1% to 100%. Ten MMA studies reported pre- and postoperative Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), and all but one study demonstrated a reduction in ESS. In the UAS studies, all but one demonstrated a reduction in AHI, and success rates ranged from 26.7% to 77.8%. In the eight UAS studies reporting pre- and postoperative ESS, an ESS reduction was demonstrated. No studies reported any deaths related to MMA or UAS. The most common postoperative complications after MMA and UAS were facial paresthesia in the mandibular area and discomfort due to electrical stimulation, respectively. This systematic review suggests that both MMA and UAS are effective and generally safe therapies for OSA. However, due to the limitations of the included studies, there is no evidence yet to directly compare these two procedures in OSA treatment.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.

BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/.

Prevalence and clinical manifestation of Borrelia miyamotoi in Ixodes ticks and humans in the northern hemisphere: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have evaluated the infection of Ixodes ticks and humans with the relapsing fever spirochaete Borrelia miyamotoi. However, to our knowledge, the prevalence of infection and disease has not been assessed systematically. We aimed to examine the prevalence of B miyamotoi in Ixodes ticks and humans, and the disease it can cause, in the northern hemisphere. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed and Web of Science up to March 1, 2021. Studies assessing Ixodes tick infection published since Jan 1, 2011 were eligible, whereas no time limitation was placed on reports of human infection and disease. We extracted B miyamotoi test positivity ratios and used a random-effects model to calculate estimated proportions of infected ticks, infected humans, and human disease with 95% CI. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021268996. FINDINGS: We identified 730 studies through database searches and 316 additional studies that referenced two seminal articles on B miyamotoi. Of these 1046 studies, 157 were included in the review, reporting on 165 637 questing ticks, 45 608 unique individuals, and 504 well described cases of B miyamotoi disease in humans. In ticks, the highest prevalence of B miyamotoi was observed in Ixodes persulcatus (2·8%, 95% CI 2·4-3·1) and the lowest in Ixodes pacificus (0·7%, 0·6-0·8). The overall seroprevalence in humans was 4·4% (2·8-6·3), with significantly (p<0·0001) higher seroprevalences in the high-risk group (4·6%, 2·6-7·1), participants with confirmed or suspected Lyme borreliosis (4·8%, 1·8-8·8), and individuals suspected of having a different tick-borne disease (11·9%, 5·6-19·9) than in healthy controls (1·3%, 0·4-2·8). Participants suspected of having a different tick-borne disease tested positive for B miyamotoi by PCR significantly more often than did the high-risk group (p=0·025), with individuals in Asia more likely to test positive than those in the USA (odds ratio 14·63 [95% CI 2·80-76·41]). INTERPRETATION: B miyamotoi disease should be considered an emerging infectious disease, especially in North America and Asia. Prospective studies and increased awareness are required to obtain further insights into the burden of disease. FUNDING: ZonMW and the European Regional Development Fund (Interreg).

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

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. 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 tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. 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. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

European Respiratory Society guidelines on transbronchial lung cryobiopsy in the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: In patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILD), histopathological input is often required to obtain a diagnosis. Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is considered the reference standard, but many patients are clinically unfit to undergo this invasive procedure, and adverse events, length of hospitalisation and costs are considerable. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) guideline provides evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the role of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) in obtaining tissue-based diagnosis in patients with undiagnosed ILD. METHODS: The ERS Task Force consisted of clinical experts in the field of ILD and/or TBLC and methodological experts. Four PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions and two narrative questions were formulated. Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase (up to June 2021). GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was applied. RESULTS: In patients with undiagnosed ILD and an indication to obtain histopathological data: 1) TBLC is suggested as a replacement test in patients considered eligible to undergo SLB, 2) TBLC is suggested in patients not considered eligible to undergo SLB, 3) SLB is suggested as an add-on test in patients with a non-informative TBLC, 4) no recommendation is made for or against a second TBLC in patients with a non-informative TBLC and 5) TBLC operators should undergo training, but no recommendation is made for the type of training required. CONCLUSIONS: TBLC provides important diagnostic information in patients with undiagnosed ILD. Diagnostic yield is lower compared to SLB, at reduced serious adverse events and length of hospitalisation. Certainty of the evidence is mostly "very low".

What did we learn in 35 years of research on nutrition and supplements for age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review.

The aim of this paper is to summarize all available evidence from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative nonrandomized studies (NRS) on the association between nutrition and antioxidant, vitamin, and mineral supplements and the development or progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane register CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase were searched and studies published between January 2015 and May 2021 were included. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. The main outcome measures were development of AMD, progression of AMD, and side effects. We included 7 systematic reviews, 7 RCTs, and 13 NRS. A high consumption of specific nutrients, i.e. ß-carotene, lutein and zeaxanthin, copper, folate, magnesium, vitamin A, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, docosahexaenoic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid, was associated with a lower risk of progression of early to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, characterized by a high consumption of vegetables, whole grains, and nuts and a low consumption of red meat, were associated with a decreased risk of progression of early to late AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). A high consumption of alcohol was associated with a higher risk of developing AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). Supplementary vitamin C, vitamin E, or ß-carotene were not associated with the development of AMD, and supplementary omega-3 fatty acids were not associated with progression to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Research in the last 35 years included in our overview supports that a high intake of specific nutrients, the use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet decrease the risk of progression of early to late AMD.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.

Systematic evidence map of evidence addressing the top 10 priority research questions for hyperemesis gravidarum.

OBJECTIVE: Knowledge gaps regarding hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) are substantial. We aimed to systematically identify and map recent evidence addressing the top 10 priority questions for HG, as published in 2021 in a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. DESIGN: Systematic evidence map. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE on 12 January 2021 and CINAHL on 22 February 2021 with search terms hyperemesis gravidarum, pernicious vomiting in pregnancy and their synonyms. Results were limited to 2009 onwards. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to assess whether the studies addressed a top 10 priority questions for HG. Differences were discussed until consensus was reached. Publications were allocated to one or more top 10 research questions. Study design was noted, as was patient or public involvement. Two reviewers extracted data synchronously and both cross-checked 10%. Extracted data were imported into EPPI-Reviewer software to create an evidence map. OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and design of studies in the search yield, displayed per the published 10 priority questions. RESULTS: Searches returned 4338 results for screening; 406 publications were included in the evidence map. 136 publications addressed multiple questions. Numerous studies address the immediate and long-term outcomes or possible markers for HG (question 8 and 9, respectively 164 and 82 studies). Very few studies seek a possible cure for HG (question 1, 8 studies), preventative treatment (question 4, 2 studies) or how to achieve nutritional requirements of pregnancy (question 10, 17 studies). Case reports/series were most numerous with 125 (30.7%) included. Few qualitative studies (9, 2.2%) were identified. 25 (6.1%) systematic reviews addressed eight questions, or aspects of them. 31 (7.6%) studies included patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant gaps and overlap in the current HG literature addressing priority questions. Researchers and funders should direct their efforts at addressing the gaps in the top 10 questions.

Statin therapy and lipoprotein(a) levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). People with elevated Lp(a) are often prescribed statins as they also often show elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. While statins are well-established in lowering LDL-C, their effect on Lp(a) remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of statins compared to placebo on Lp(a) and the effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy on Lp(a). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with a statin and placebo arm. Medline and EMBASE were searched until August 2019. Quality assessment of studies was done using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Mean difference of absolute and percentage changes of Lp(a) in the statin vs. the placebo arms were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We compared effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy using subgroup- and network meta-analyses. Certainty of the evidence was determined using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Overall, 39 studies (24 448 participants) were included. Mean differences (95% confidence interval) of absolute and percentage changes in the statin vs. the placebo arms were 1.1 mg/dL (0.5-1.6, P < 0.0001) and 0.1% (-3.6% to 4.0%, P = 0.95), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the types of statins changed Lp(a) significantly compared to placebo (very low- to high-certainty evidence), as well as intensities of statin therapy (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: Statin therapy does not lead to clinically important differences in Lp(a) compared to placebo in patients at risk for CVD. Our findings suggest that in these patients, statin therapy will not change Lp(a)-associated CVD risk.