Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews' methods: protocol for an eDelphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised. OBJECTIVE: To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.

Aerobic exercise ameliorates survival, clinical score, lung inflammation, DNA and protein damage in septic mice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sepsis is a potentially deadly organic dysfunction, and one of the main causes of mortality in intensive care units (ICU). Aerobic exercise (AE) is a preventive intervention in the establishment of inflammatory conditions, such as chronic lung diseases, but its effects on sepsis remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of AE on health condition, mortality, inflammation, and oxidative damage in an experimental model of pneumosepsis induced by Klebsiella pneumoniae (K.p). METHODS: Animals were randomly allocated to Control; Exercise (EXE); Pneumosepsis (PS) or Exercise + Pneumosepsis (EPS) groups. Exercised animals were submitted to treadmill exercise for 2 weeks, 30 min/day, prior to pneumosepsis induced by K.p tracheal instillation. RESULTS: PS produced a striking decrease in the health condition leading to massive death (85%). AE protected mice, as evidenced by better clinical scores and increased survival (70%). AE alleviated sickness behavior in EPS mice as evaluated in the open field test, and inflammation (nitrite + nitrate, TNF-α and IL-1ß levels) in broncoalveolar fluid. Catalase activity, oxidative damage to proteins and DNA was increased by sepsis and prevented by exercise. CONCLUSION: Overall, the beneficial effects of exercise in septic animals encompassed a markedly improved clinical score and decreased mortality, along with lower inflammation markers, less DNA and protein damage, as well as preserved antioxidant enzyme activity. Neural network risk analysis revealed exercise had a considerable effect on the overall health condition of septic mice.