Daily Duration of Eating for Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Time-limited eating is a dietary intervention whereby eating is limited to a specific window of time during the day. The usual eating windows of adults, and how these can be manipulated for dietary interventions, is well documented. However, there is a paucity of data on eating windows of young people, the manipulation of which may be a useful intervention for reducing obesity. This paper reviewed the existing literature on the eating windows of children and adolescents, aged 5-18 years, plus clock times of first and last intakes and variations by subgroup. Two databases (Medline and Embase) were searched for eligible papers published between February 2013 and February 2023, with forward searching of the citation network of included studies on Web of Science. Articles were screened, and data extracted, in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Ten studies were included, with both observational and experimental designs. Narrative synthesis showed large variations in eating windows with average values ranging from 9.7 h to 16.4 h. Meta-analysis, of five studies, showed a pooled mean daily eating window of 11.3 h (95% CI 11.0, 11.7). Large variations in eating windows exist across different study populations; however, the pooled data suggest that it may be possible to design time-limited eating interventions in paediatric populations aimed at reducing eating windows. Further high-quality research, investigating eating windows and subsequent associations with health outcomes, is needed.

Palliative care needs of people and/or their families with serious and/or chronic health conditions in low- or middle-income country (LMIC) humanitarian settings-a systematic scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care in low- or middle-income country (LMIC) humanitarian settings is a new area, experiencing a degree of increased momentum over recent years. The review contributes to this growing body of knowledge, in addition to identifying gaps for future research. The overall aim is to systematically explore the evidence on palliative care needs of patients and/or their families in LMIC humanitarian settings. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's (Int J Soc Res Methodol. 8:19-32, 2005) scoping review framework forms the basis of the study design, following further guidance from Levac et al. (Implement Sci 5:1-9, 2010), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Peters et al. (JBI Reviewer's Manual JBI: 406-452, 2020), and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) from Tricco et al. (Ann Intern Med 169:467-73, 2018). This incorporates a five-step approach and the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework. Using already identified key words/terms, searches for both published research and gray literature from January 2012 to October 2022 will be undertaken using databases (likely to include Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), Web of Science, Policy Commons, JSTOR, Library Network International Monetary Fund and World Bank, Google Advanced Search, and Google Scholar) in addition to selected pre-print sites and websites. Data selection will be undertaken based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and will be reviewed at each stage by two reviewers, with a third to resolve any differences. Extracted data will be charted in a table. Ethical approval is not required for this review. DISCUSSION: Findings will be presented in tables and diagrams/charts, followed by a narrative description. The review will run from late October 2022 to early 2023. This is the first systematic scoping review specifically exploring the palliative care needs of patients and/or their family, in LMIC humanitarian settings. The paper from the review findings will be submitted for publication in 2023.

Does arthroscopic or open washout in native knee septic arthritis result in superior post-operative function? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

AIMS: Septic arthritis (SA) of the native knee joint is associated with significant morbidity. This review compared post-operative functional outcomes (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and range of movement (ROM)) following arthroscopic washout (AW) and open washout (OW) amongst adult patients with SA of the native knee. The need for further operative intervention was also considered. METHODS: Electronic databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 16 February 2023 and 18 March 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational analytic studies comparing function (reflected in PROMs or ROM) at latest follow-up following AW and OW were included. A narrative summary was provided concerning post-operative PROMs. Pooled estimates for mean ROM and re-operation rates were conducted using the random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool-2 for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool for observational analytic studies. RESULTS: Of 2580 retrieved citations, 7 articles (1 RCT and 6 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, five had some concerns/moderate risk of bias, and two had serious risk. There was a slight tendency for superior mean PROMs following AW compared with OW, but due to small effect sizes, this was unlikely clinically relevant. Additionally, the use of four different PROMs scales made direct comparisons impossible. AW was associated with superior ROM (mean difference 20.18° (95% CI 14.35, 26.02; p < 0.00001)), whilst there was a tendency for lower re-operation requirements following AW (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26, 1.57, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: AW was associated with equivalent to superior post-operative function and lower requirement for further intervention compared with OW. Results need to be interpreted cautiously, taking into consideration the methodological and clinical heterogeneity of the included studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2022, CRD42022364062.

Dynamics of Mpox infection in Nigeria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The seasonal outbreaks of Mpox continue in most parts of West and Central Africa. In the past year, Nigeria had the highest number of reported cases. Here, we used the PRISMA guidelines to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence on Mpox in Nigeria to assess the prevalence, transmission pattern, diagnostic approach, and other associated factors useful for mitigating the transmission of the disease. All relevant observational studies in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, AJOL, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar on Mpox in Nigeria were assessed within the last fifty years (1972 to 2022). In all, 92 relevant articles were retrieved, out of which 23 were included in the final qualitative analysis. Notably, most of the cases of Mpox in Nigeria were from the southern part of the country. Our findings showed a progressive spread from the southern to the northern region of the country. We identified the following factors as important in the transmission of Mpox in Nigeria; poverty, lack of basic healthcare facilities, and risk of exposure through unsafe sexual practices. Our findings reiterate the need to strengthen and expand existing efforts as well as establish robust multi-sectoral collaboration to understand the dynamics of Mpox Nigeria.

Assessing the research landscape and clinical utility of large language models: a scoping review.

IMPORTANCE: Large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT are powerful generative systems that rapidly synthesize natural language responses. Research on LLMs has revealed their potential and pitfalls, especially in clinical settings. However, the evolving landscape of LLM research in medicine has left several gaps regarding their evaluation, application, and evidence base. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to (1) summarize current research evidence on the accuracy and efficacy of LLMs in medical applications, (2) discuss the ethical, legal, logistical, and socioeconomic implications of LLM use in clinical settings, (3) explore barriers and facilitators to LLM implementation in healthcare, (4) propose a standardized evaluation framework for assessing LLMs' clinical utility, and (5) identify evidence gaps and propose future research directions for LLMs in clinical applications. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We screened 4,036 records from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv from January 2023 (inception of the search) to June 26, 2023 for English-language papers and analyzed findings from 55 worldwide studies. Quality of evidence was reported based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine recommendations. FINDINGS: Our results demonstrate that LLMs show promise in compiling patient notes, assisting patients in navigating the healthcare system, and to some extent, supporting clinical decision-making when combined with human oversight. However, their utilization is limited by biases in training data that may harm patients, the generation of inaccurate but convincing information, and ethical, legal, socioeconomic, and privacy concerns. We also identified a lack of standardized methods for evaluating LLMs' effectiveness and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This review thus highlights potential future directions and questions to address these limitations and to further explore LLMs' potential in enhancing healthcare delivery.

Preoperative diagnostic criteria for scleroatrophic gallbladder: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Although scleroatrophic gallbladder is a rare condition, it presents significant clinical challenges in diagnosis and management. More agreement is needed on this disorder's diagnostic criteria and optimal management approach. We will conduct a systematic review to summarise the scleroatrophic gallbladder's preoperative diagnostic criteria, including imaging modalities. METHODS: A systematic review will be undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024503701). We will search in Medline (via PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to find original studies reporting about scleroatrophic gallbladder or synonymous. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts following the eligibility criteria. We will include all types of studies that describe any diagnostic criteria or tools. After retrieving the full text of the selected studies, we will conduct a standardised data extraction. Finally, a narrative synthesis will be performed. The quality of the identified studies will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies- 2 tool. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide information on the preoperative diagnostic criteria of the scleroatrophic gallbladder and the value of imaging studies in its diagnosis. In addition, this work will aid doctors in the decision-making process for diagnosing scleroatrophic gallbladder and propose treatment approaches to this condition. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024503701).

Efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying randomised controlled trials on hyperbaric oxygen treatment.

Introduction: Literature searches are routinely used by researchers for conducting systematic reviews as well as by healthcare providers, and sometimes patients, to quickly guide their clinical decisions. Using more than one database is generally recommended but may not always be necessary for some fields. This study aimed to determine the added value of searching additional databases beyond MEDLINE when conducting a literature search of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: This study consisted of two phases: a scoping review of all RCTs in the field of HBOT, followed by a a statistical analysis of sensitivity, precision, 'number needed to read' (NNR) and 'number unique' included by individual biomedical databases. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched without date or language restrictions up to December 31, 2022. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by pairs of independent reviewers. RCTs were included if they involved human subjects and HBOT was offered either on its own or in combination with other treatments. Results: Out of 5,840 different citations identified, 367 were included for analysis. CENTRAL was the most sensitive (87.2%) and had the most unique references (7.1%). MEDLINE had the highest precision (23.8%) and optimal NNR (four). Among included references, 14.2% were unique to a single database. Conclusions: Systematic reviews of RCTs in HBOT should always utilise multiple databases, which at minimum include MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL.

Engaging people with lived experiences on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of the research process to facilitate social change and increase research relevance. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a CBPR tool in which individuals with lived experience and community organisations are integrated into the research process and ensure the work aligns with community priorities. We seek to (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs and (2) identify the scope of literature on minimising power dynamics between organisations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, informed by Levac et al, and will be reported using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Grey literature references and reference lists of included articles published between 1 January 1990 and 30 March 2023 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts will be decided by consensus or a third reviewer. Thematic analysis will be applied in three phases: open coding, axial coding and abstraction. Extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. At this time, a preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics approval is not required for this review. Review findings will inform ongoing and future CBPR community advisory board dynamics. REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QF5D3).

Protocol for a scoping review of factors associated with disparities in clinical provision of deep brain stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) can be used to treat several neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Parkinson's disease, epilepsy and obsessive-compulsive disorder; however, limited work has been done to assess the disparities in DBS access and implementation. The goal of this scoping review is to identify sources of disparity in the clinical provision of DBS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review will be conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews methodology. Relevant studies will be identified from databases including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, as well as reference lists from retained articles. Initial search dates were in January 2023, with the study still ongoing. An initial screening of the titles and abstracts of potentially eligible studies will be completed, with relevant studies collected for full-text review. The principal investigators and coauthors will then independently review all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted and collected in table format. Finally, results will be synthesised in a table and narrative report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No institutional board review or approval is necessary for the proposed scoping review. The findings will be submitted for publication to relevant peer-reviewed journals and conferences. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/cxvhu).

Voice disorder recognition using machine learning: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, several machine learning (ML) algorithms have been investigated to assess their efficacy in detecting voice disorders. Literature indicates that ML algorithms can detect voice disorders with high accuracy. This suggests that ML has the potential to assist clinicians in the analysis and treatment outcome evaluation of voice disorders. However, despite numerous research studies, none of the algorithms have been sufficiently reliable to be used in clinical settings. Through this review, we aim to identify critical issues that have inhibited the use of ML algorithms in clinical settings by identifying standard audio tasks, acoustic features, processing algorithms and environmental factors that affect the efficacy of those algorithms. METHODS: We will search the following databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Compendex, CINAHL, Medline, IEEE Explore and Embase. Our search strategy has been developed with the assistance of the university library staff to accommodate the different syntactical requirements. The literature search will include the period between 2013 and 2023, and will be confined to articles published in English. We will exclude editorials, ongoing studies and working papers. The selection, extraction and analysis of the search data will be conducted using the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews' system. The same system will also be used for the synthesis of the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethics approval as the review solely consists of peer-reviewed publications. The findings will be presented in peer-reviewed publications related to voice pathology.

Weight stigma and allostatic load in adults: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Weight-related stigma (WS) has been associated with adverse psychosocial and physical health effects. Despite the relationship between WS and allostatic load, there are no integrative reviews of this association. This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the relationship between allostatic load biomarkers associated with WS by identifying gaps in this topic and proposing recommendations for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was guided by the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The research questions were based on the population-concept-context framework. Studies in adults diagnosed as overweight or obese, exposed to WS and assessing the association between WS and biomarkers of allostatic load will be included. A search will be conducted in Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and Google Scholar. The search strategy will be conducted in three stages, based on the JBI recommendation with the MESH terms "Social Stigma," "Weight Prejudice," "Biomarkers," "Allostasis," "Adults" and related terms. Data extraction will be done with a template adapted from JBI. The search strategy and selection process results will be presented in a flow chart and summarised in the text. The main results will be presented in a descriptive synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics review and approval are not required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences, congresses or symposia.

Understanding the factors influencing acceptability of AI in medical imaging domains among healthcare professionals: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has the potential to transform medical practice within the medical imaging industry and materially improve productivity and patient outcomes. However, low acceptability of AI as a digital healthcare intervention among medical professionals threatens to undermine user uptake levels, hinder meaningful and optimal value-added engagement, and ultimately prevent these promising benefits from being realised. Understanding the factors underpinning AI acceptability will be vital for medical institutions to pinpoint areas of deficiency and improvement within their AI implementation strategies. This scoping review aims to survey the literature to provide a comprehensive summary of the key factors influencing AI acceptability among healthcare professionals in medical imaging domains and the different approaches which have been taken to investigate them. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across five academic databases including Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Compendex, and Scopus from January 2013 to September 2023. This was done in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Overall, 31 articles were deemed appropriate for inclusion in the scoping review. RESULTS: The literature has converged towards three overarching categories of factors underpinning AI acceptability including: user factors involving trust, system understanding, AI literacy, and technology receptiveness; system usage factors entailing value proposition, self-efficacy, burden, and workflow integration; and socio-organisational-cultural factors encompassing social influence, organisational readiness, ethicality, and perceived threat to professional identity. Yet, numerous studies have overlooked a meaningful subset of these factors that are integral to the use of medical AI systems such as the impact on clinical workflow practices, trust based on perceived risk and safety, and compatibility with the norms of medical professions. This is attributable to reliance on theoretical frameworks or ad-hoc approaches which do not explicitly account for healthcare-specific factors, the novelties of AI as software as a medical device (SaMD), and the nuances of human-AI interaction from the perspective of medical professionals rather than lay consumer or business end users. CONCLUSION: This is the first scoping review to survey the health informatics literature around the key factors influencing the acceptability of AI as a digital healthcare intervention in medical imaging contexts. The factors identified in this review suggest that existing theoretical frameworks used to study AI acceptability need to be modified to better capture the nuances of AI deployment in healthcare contexts where the user is a healthcare professional influenced by expert knowledge and disciplinary norms. Increasing AI acceptability among medical professionals will critically require designing human-centred AI systems which go beyond high algorithmic performance to consider accessibility to users with varying degrees of AI literacy, clinical workflow practices, the institutional and deployment context, and the cultural, ethical, and safety norms of healthcare professions. As investment into AI for healthcare increases, it would be valuable to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the causal contribution of these factors to achieving high levels of AI acceptability among medical professionals.

Trust and acceptability of data-driven clinical recommendations in everyday practice: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is being given to the analysis of large health datasets to derive new clinical decision support systems (CDSS). However, few data-driven CDSS are being adopted into clinical practice. Trust in these tools is believed to be fundamental for acceptance and uptake but to date little attention has been given to defining or evaluating trust in clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: A scoping review was conducted to explore how and where acceptability and trustworthiness of data-driven CDSS have been assessed from the health professional's perspective. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar were searched in March 2022 using terms expanded from: "data-driven" AND "clinical decision support" AND "acceptability". Included studies focused on healthcare practitioner-facing data-driven CDSS, relating directly to clinical care. They included trust or a proxy as an outcome, or in the discussion. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) is followed in the reporting of this review. RESULTS: 3291 papers were screened, with 85 primary research studies eligible for inclusion. Studies covered a diverse range of clinical specialisms and intended contexts, but hypothetical systems (24) outnumbered those in clinical use (18). Twenty-five studies measured trust, via a wide variety of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. A further 24 discussed themes of trust without it being explicitly evaluated, and from these, themes of transparency, explainability, and supporting evidence were identified as factors influencing healthcare practitioner trust in data-driven CDSS. CONCLUSION: There is a growing body of research on data-driven CDSS, but few studies have explored stakeholder perceptions in depth, with limited focused research on trustworthiness. Further research on healthcare practitioner acceptance, including requirements for transparency and explainability, should inform clinical implementation.

Research delivery secondments: A scoping review.

AIM: To explore and summarise published literature with regards to secondments to clinical research and to identify the gaps in research to inform further work. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. METHOD: A scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research framework. Databases searched included CINAHL, PubMed, Medline and Embase. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. Two reviewers independently retrieved full-text studies for inclusion and applied the framework as a tool for synthesising Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research recommendations. RESULTS: Six papers and one abstract published between 2003 and 2018 were included. All secondees (n = 34) were released from NHS posts, with secondments (where specified) ranging in duration from 0.25 to 2 years and for 40%-100% of their working hours. All seven papers reported benefits for personal and professional development, predominantly in the form of personal reflections. Few described involvement with research delivery teams. CONCLUSION: Published initiatives vary in nature and lack standardised reporting and measurement of impact. Further research is required to identify benefits at a departmental or organisational level, the facilitators for setting up secondments and the application of knowledge gained from secondment opportunities. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Undertaking a research secondment is reported to offer professional and personal benefit for clinical staff. Research secondments are one way in which a research culture can practically be embedded within clinical settings. IMPACT: This scoping review identified a lack of published empirical research seeking to understand research secondments as a tool to enhance research and evidence engagement. Although there is a suggestion that secondments could positively impact staff retention, there is limited evidence about the benefit for the organisation or for patient care. These findings have implications for staff, managers and their organisations. REPORTING METHOD: The PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to guide reporting. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This was not relevant to the research design.

Methods and measures to evaluate the impact of participatory model building on public policymakers: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Public policymakers are increasingly engaged in participatory model building processes, such as group model building. Understanding the impacts of policymaker participation in these processes on policymakers is important given that their decisions often have significant influence on the dynamics of complex systems that affect health. Little is known about the extent to which the impacts of participatory model building on public policymakers have been evaluated or the methods and measures used to evaluate these impacts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review protocol was developed with the objectives of: (1) scoping studies that have evaluated the impacts of facilitated participatory model building processes on public policymakers who participated in these processes; and (2) describing methods and measures used to evaluate impacts and the main findings of these evaluations. The Joanna Briggs Institute's Population, Concept, Context framework was used to formulate the article identification process. Seven electronic databases-MEDLINE (Ovid), ProQuest Health and Medical, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Complete and PsycInfo-will be searched. Identified articles will be screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist for scoping reviews will be used and reported. A data extraction tool will collect information across three domains: study characteristics, methods and measures, and findings. The review will be conducted using Covidence, a systematic review data management platform. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review produced will generate an overview of how public policymaker engagement in participatory model building processes has been evaluated. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and to communities of practice that convene policymakers in participatory model building processes. This review will not require ethics approval because it is not human subject research.

Alpha-lipoic acid for diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a frequent complication in people living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. There is currently no effective treatment for DPN. Although alpha-lipoic acid (ALA, also known as thioctic acid) is widely used, there is no consensus about its benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alpha-lipoic acid as a disease-modifying agent in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. SEARCH METHODS: On 11 September 2022, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two clinical trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of the included studies and relevant review articles for additional references not identified by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared ALA with placebo in adults (aged 18 years or older) and that applied the study interventions for at least six months. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was change in neuropathy symptoms expressed as changes in the Total Symptom Score (TSS) at six months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were change in neuropathy symptoms at six to 12 months and at 12 to 24 months, change in impairment, change in any validated quality of life total score, complications of DPN, and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Our analysis incorporated three trials involving 816 participants. Two studies included people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, while one study included only people with type 2 diabetes. The duration of treatment was between six months and 48 months. We judged all studies at high risk of overall bias due to attrition. ALA compared with placebo probably has little or no effect on neuropathy symptoms measured by TSS (lower score is better) after six months (mean difference (MD) -0.16 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.83 to 0.51; 1 study, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The CI of this effect estimate did not contain the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.97 points. ALA compared with placebo may have little or no effect on impairment measured by the Neuropathy Impairment Score-Lower Limbs (NIS-LL; lower score is better) after six months (MD -1.02 points, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.89; 1 study, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we cannot rule out a significant benefit, because the lower limit of the CI surpassed the MCID of 2 points. There is probably little or no difference between ALA and placebo in terms of adverse events leading to cessation of treatment within six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.35; 3 studies, 1090 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported quality of life or complications associated with DPN. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that ALA probably has little or no effect on neuropathy symptoms or adverse events at six months, and may have little or no effect on impairment at six months. All the studies were at high risk of attrition bias. Therefore, future RCTs should ensure complete follow-up and transparent reporting of any participants missing from the analyses.

Use of deprescribing search filters in systematic review search strategies: A case study.

Two deprescribing search filters for MEDLINE and one deprescribing search filter for Embase have been recently developed, including objectively developed search filters. The objective of this case study was to implement these three deprescribing search filters in systematic review (SR) search strategies and to assess their effect on performances. SR that independently developed original search strategies (OSS) were selected. The deprescribing filters were implemented in each OSS, generating two implemented search strategies (ISS1 and ISS2) in MEDLINE and one ISS (ISS3) in Embase. OSS were re-run on the same date as ISS. The performances of ISS and OSS were calculated and compared. Two SR were included (SR1 and SR2). For MEDLINE, SR1 included 12 articles. The sensitivity was 50% for OSS, 58% for ISS1 and 42% for ISS2. SR2 included four articles. The sensitivity of OSS, ISS 1 and 2 was 25%. For Embase, SR1 included 12 articles. The sensitivity was 33% for OSS and 58% for ISS3. SR2 included four articles. None of the four included articles were retrieved with OSS or ISS3. While sensitivity of OSS was moderate, the objectively developed deprescribing filters maintained or slightly improved this sensitivity when implementing.

Epley manoeuvre's efficacy for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary-care and subspecialty settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care by using point estimates or certainty of evidence. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis and clarified the efficacy of EM for BPPV, regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials of EM for the treatment of posterior canal BPPV in primary-care and subspecialty settings. A primary-care setting was defined as a practice setting by general practitioners, primary-care doctors, or family doctors. A systematic search was conducted in January 2022 across databases, including Cochrane Central Resister of Controlled Trial, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes were the disappearance of subjective symptoms (vertigo), negative findings (Dix-Hallpike test), and all adverse events. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials were identified. In primary-care settings, EM reduced the subjective symptoms [risk ratio (RR), 3.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96-5.02]; however, there was no applicable article for all adverse events. In the subspeciality setting, EM reduced the subjective symptoms (RR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.64-3.56), resulting in an increase in negative findings (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.40-2.34). The evidence exhibited uncertainty about the effect of EM on negative findings in primary-care settings and all adverse events in subspecialty settings. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings, EM for BPPV was effective. This study has shown the significance of performing EM for BPPV in primary-care settings. EM for BPPV in a primary-care setting may aid in preventing referrals to higher tertiary care facilities and hospitalisation for follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in protocols.io (PROTOCOL INTEGER ID: 51,464) on July 11, 2021.

Feasibility, Adherence, and Effectiveness of Blended Psychotherapy for Severe Mental Illnesses: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Blended psychotherapy (bPT) combines face-to-face psychotherapy with digital interventions to enhance the effectiveness of mental health treatment. The feasibility and effectiveness of bPT have been demonstrated for various mental health issues, although primarily for patients with higher levels of functioning. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to investigate the feasibility, adherence, and effectiveness of bPT for the treatment of patients with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PsycArticles for studies published until March 23, 2023. RESULTS: Out of 587 screened papers, we incorporated 25 studies encompassing 23 bPT interventions, involving a total of 2554 patients with SMI. The intervention formats and research designs exhibited significant variation. Our findings offer preliminary evidence supporting the feasibility of bPT for SMI, although there is limited research on adherence. Nevertheless, the summarized studies indicated promising attrition rates, spanning from 0% to 37%, implying a potential beneficial impact of bPT on adherence to SMI treatment. The quantity of evidence on the effects of bPT for SMI was limited and challenging to generalize. Among the 15 controlled trials, 4 concluded that bPT interventions were effective compared with controls. However, it is noteworthy that 2 of these studies used the same study population, and the control groups exhibited significant variations. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our review suggests that while bPT appears promising as a treatment method, further research is necessary to establish its effectiveness for SMI. We discuss considerations for clinical implementation, directions, and future research.

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance. METHODS: A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word. RESULTS: Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR. CONCLUSION: Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.