Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY): summary of findings and assessment of existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. METHODS: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. RESULTS: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs.

Psychological and social interventions for the promotion of mental health in people living in low- and middle-income countries affected by humanitarian crises.

BACKGROUND: Because of wars, conflicts, persecutions, human rights violations, and humanitarian crises, about 84 million people are forcibly displaced around the world; the great majority of them live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). People living in humanitarian settings are affected by a constellation of stressors that threaten their mental health. Psychosocial interventions for people affected by humanitarian crises may be helpful to promote positive aspects of mental health, such as mental well-being, psychosocial functioning, coping, and quality of life. Previous reviews have focused on treatment and mixed promotion and prevention interventions. In this review, we focused on promotion of positive aspects of mental health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions aimed at promoting mental health versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases to January 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) to promote positive aspects of mental health in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were mental well-being, functioning, quality of life, resilience, coping, hope, and prosocial behaviour. The secondary outcome was acceptability, defined as the number of participants who dropped out of the trial for any reason. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the outcomes of mental well-being, functioning, and prosocial behaviour. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs with 7917 participants. Nine RCTs were conducted on children/adolescents, and four on adults. All included interventions were delivered to groups of participants, mainly by paraprofessionals. Paraprofessional is defined as an individual who is not a mental or behavioural health service professional, but works at the first stage of contact with people who are seeking mental health care. Four RCTs were carried out in Lebanon; two in India; and single RCTs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Jordan, Haiti, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the occupied Palestinian Territories (oPT), Nepal, and Tanzania. The mean study duration was 18 weeks (minimum 10, maximum 32 weeks). Trials were generally funded by grants from academic institutions or non-governmental organisations. For children and adolescents, there was no clear difference between psychosocial interventions and control conditions in improving mental well-being and prosocial behaviour at study endpoint (mental well-being: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.29; 3 RCTs, 3378 participants; very low-certainty evidence; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 1633 participants; low-certainty evidence), or at medium-term follow-up (mental well-being: mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.99; 1 RCT, 258 participants; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.80 to 0.83; 2 RCT, 483 participants; both very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may improve functioning (MD -2.18, 95% CI -3.86 to -0.50; 1 RCT, 183 participants), with sustained effects at follow-up (MD -3.33, 95% CI -5.03 to -1.63; 1 RCT, 183 participants), but evidence is very uncertain as the data came from one RCT (both very low-certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may improve mental well-being slightly in adults at study endpoint (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; 3 RCTs, 674 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they may have little to no effect at follow-up, as the evidence is uncertain and future RCTs might either confirm or disprove this finding. No RCTs measured the outcomes of functioning and prosocial behaviour in adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, there is scant and inconclusive randomised evidence on the potential benefits of psychological and social interventions to promote mental health in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of studies included in the review, the small number of participants analysed, the risk of bias in the studies, and the substantial level of heterogeneity. Evidence on the efficacy of interventions on positive mental health outcomes is too scant to determine firm practice and policy implications. This review has identified a large gap between what is known and what still needs to be addressed in the research area of mental health promotion in humanitarian settings.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with high risks of premature chronic kidney disease (CKD), cardiovascular diseases, cardiovascular death and impaired quality of life. People with diabetes are more likely to develop kidney impairment, and approximately one in three adults with diabetes have CKD. People with CKD and diabetes experience a substantially higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown potential effects in preventing kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in people with CKD and diabetes. However, new trials are emerging rapidly, and evidence synthesis is essential to summarising cumulative evidence. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the benefits and harms of SGLT2 inhibitors for people with CKD and diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 17 November 2023 using a search strategy designed by an Information Specialist. Studies in the Register are continually identified through regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies were eligible if they evaluated SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo, standard care or other glucose-lowering agents in people with CKD and diabetes. CKD includes all stages (from 1 to 5), including dialysis patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The primary review outcomes were all-cause death, 3-point and 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal stroke, and kidney failure. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three studies randomising 65,241 people with CKD and diabetes were included. SGLT2 inhibitors with or without other background treatments were compared to placebo, standard care, sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, or insulin. In the majority of domains, the risks of bias in the included studies were low or unclear. No studies evaluated the treatment in children or in people treated with dialysis. No studies compared SGLT2 inhibitors with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or tirzepatide. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors decreased the risk of all-cause death (20 studies, 44,397 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; high certainty) and cardiovascular death (16 studies, 43,792 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; I2 = 29%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably make little or no difference to the risk of fatal or nonfatal MI (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14; I2 = 24%; moderate certainty), and fatal or nonfatal stroke (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably decrease 3-point MACE (7 studies, 38,320 participants: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; I2 = 46%; moderate certainty), and 4-point MACE (4 studies, 23,539 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96; I2 = 77%; moderate certainty), and decrease hospital admission due to heart failure (6 studies, 28,339 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 17%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease creatinine clearance (1 study, 132 participants: MD -2.63 mL/min, 95% CI -5.19 to -0.07; low certainty) and probably decrease the doubling of serum creatinine (2 studies, 12,647 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89; I2 = 53%; moderate certainty). SGLT2 inhibitors decrease the risk of kidney failure (6 studies, 11,232 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and kidney composite outcomes (generally reported as kidney failure, kidney death with or without ≥ 40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)) (7 studies, 36,380 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.78; I2 = 25%; high certainty) compared to placebo. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors incur less hypoglycaemia (16 studies, 28,322 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and hypoglycaemia requiring third-party assistance (14 studies, 26,478 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and probably decrease the withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events (15 studies, 16,622 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty). The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on eGFR, amputation and fracture were uncertain. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on fatigue, life participation, or lactic acidosis. The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors compared to standard care alone, sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitors, or insulin were uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2 inhibitors alone or added to standard care decrease all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and kidney failure and probably decrease major cardiovascular events while incurring less hypoglycaemia compared to placebo in people with CKD and diabetes.

Antioxidant supplementation for sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) refers to a group of genetic disorders characterized by the presence of an abnormal haemoglobin molecule called haemoglobin S (HbS). When subjected to oxidative stress from low oxygen concentrations, HbS molecules form rigid polymers, giving the red cell the typical sickle shape. Antioxidants have been shown to reduce oxidative stress and improve outcomes in other diseases associated with oxidative stress. Therefore, it is important to review and synthesize the available evidence on the effect of antioxidants on the clinical outcomes of people with SCD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antioxidant supplementation for improving health outcomes in people with SCD. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 August 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing antioxidant supplementation to placebo, other antioxidants, or different doses of antioxidants, in people with SCD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, and reported according to Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 1609 participants in 26 studies, with 17 comparisons. We rated 13 studies as having a high risk of bias overall, and 13 studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall due to study limitations. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. Only eight studies reported on our important outcomes at six months. Vitamin C (1400 mg) plus vitamin E (800 mg) versus placebo Based on evidence from one study in 83 participants, vitamin C (1400 mg) plus vitamin E (800 mg) may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 2.18), the severity of pain (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.37), or adverse effects (AE), of which the most common were headache, nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea, and epigastric pain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00). Vitamin C plus vitamin E may increase the risk of SCD-related complications (acute chest syndrome: RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.13; 1 study, 83 participants), and increase haemoglobin level (median (interquartile range) 90 (81 to 96) g/L versus 93.5 (84 to 105) g/L) (1 study, 83 participants) compared to placebo. However, the evidence for all the above effects is very uncertain. The study did not report on quality of life (QoL) of participants and their caregivers, nor on frequency of hospitalization. Zinc versus placebo Zinc may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis at six months (rate ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.29; 1 study, 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether zinc is better than placebo at improving sickle cell-related complications (complete healing of leg ulcers at six months: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 6.72; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Zinc may be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level (g/dL) (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.26; 1 study, 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on severity of pain, QoL, AE, and frequency of hospitalization. N-acetylcysteine versus placebo N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 1200 mg may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis in SCD, reported as pain days (rate ratio 0.99 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.84; 1 study, 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study (96 participants) suggests NAC (1200 mg) may not be better than placebo at reducing the severity of pain (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.87). Compared to placebo, NAC (1200 mg) may not be better at improving physical QoL (MD -1.80, 95% CI -5.01 to 1.41) and mental QoL (MD 2.00, 95% CI -1.45 to 5.45; very low-certainty evidence), reducing the risk of adverse effects (gastrointestinal complaints, pruritus, or rash) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; low-certainty evidence), reducing the frequency of hospitalizations (rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; low-certainty evidence), and sickle cell-related complications (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.48; very low-certainty evidence), or increasing haemoglobin level (MD -0.18 g/dL, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.04; low-certainty evidence). L-arginine versus placebo L-arginine may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis (monthly pain) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.95; 1 study, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, L-arginine may be better than placebo at reducing the severity of pain (MD -1.41, 95% CI -1.65 to -1.18; 2 studies, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). One participant allocated to L-arginine developed hives during infusion of L-arginine, another experienced acute clinical deterioration, and a participant in the placebo group had clinically relevant increases in liver function enzymes. The evidence is very uncertain whether L-arginine is better at reducing the mean number of days in hospital compared to placebo (MD -0.85 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 0.17; 2 studies, 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Also, L-arginine may not be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level (MD 0.4 g/dL, 95% CI -0.50 to 1.3; 2 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study in this comparison reported on QoL and sickle cell-related complications. Omega-3 versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence shows no evidence of a difference in the risk of adverse effects of omega-3 compared to placebo (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.48; 1 study, 67 participants). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that omega-3 may not be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level (MD 0.36 g/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.93; 1 study, 67 participants). The study did not report on frequency of crisis, severity of pain, QoL, frequency of hospitalization, and sickle cell-related complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was inconsistent evidence on all outcomes to draw conclusions on the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidants. However, L-arginine may be better than placebo at reducing the severity of pain at six months, and zinc may be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level. We are uncertain whether other antioxidants are beneficial for SCD. Larger studies conducted on each comparison would reduce the current uncertainties.

Interventions for preventing haemodialysis dysequilibrium syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis dysequilibrium syndrome (DDS) refers to neurological symptoms usually seen during or after new initiation or following reinitiation of haemodialysis (HD) after missing multiple sessions. DDS is associated with death and morbidity. We studied interventions aimed at preventing DDS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different types of interventions for preventing DDS. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 8 May 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any intervention against standard care, including individuals initiated on HD, regardless of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality and extracted data. Data were collected on methods, interventions, participants, and outcomes (DDS incidence, severe DDS, death, adverse events). Risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, enrolling 32 adult participants. Interventions included were slow dialysis, sodium modelling, standard sodium dialysate, and high sodium dialysate. The risk of bias was of some concern to high risk of bias in both studies. Slow dialysis compared to sodium modelling (1 study, 15 participants) may result in little to no difference in DDS, severe DDS, and death (low certainty evidence) and has uncertain effects on adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 11.64; very low certainty evidence). Standard sodium dialysate compared to high sodium dialysate (1 study, 17 participants) has uncertain effects on the incidence of DDS (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.12), severe DDS (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.32), and adverse events (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.02) (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In HD patients, sodium modelling, compared to slow dialysis, may result in little to no difference in DDS and death (low certainty evidence) and has uncertain effects on adverse events (very low certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for the effect of high-sodium dialysate and standard sodium dialysate on DDS, death and adverse events (very low certainty evidence).

Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for acute heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) is new onset of, or a sudden worsening of, chronic heart failure characterised by congestion in about 95% of cases or end-organ hypoperfusion in 5% of cases. Treatment often requires urgent escalation of diuretic therapy, mainly through hospitalisation. This Cochrane review evaluated the efficacy of intravenous loop diuretics strategies in treating AHF in individuals with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification III or IV and fluid overload. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intravenous continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for the initial treatment of acute heart failure in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through systematic searches of bibliographic databases and in clinical trials registers including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CPCI-S on the Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), and the European Union Trials register. We conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was performed on 29 February 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with AHF, NYHA classification III or IV, regardless of aetiology or ejection fraction, where trials compared intravenous continuous infusion of loop diuretics with intermittent bolus injection in AHF. We excluded trials with chronic stable heart failure, cardiogenic shock, renal artery stenosis, or end-stage renal disease. Additionally, we excluded studies combining loop diuretics with hypertonic saline, inotropes, vasoactive medications, or renal replacement therapy and trials where diuretic dosing was protocol-driven to achieve a target urine output, due to confounding factors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened papers for inclusion and reviewed full-texts. Outcomes included weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission following discharge, and occurrence of acute kidney injury. We performed risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis where data permitted and assessed certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The review included seven RCTs, spanning 32 hospitals in seven countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Data collection ranged from eight months to six years. Following exclusion of participants in subgroups with confounding treatments and different clinical settings, 681 participants were eligible for review. These additional study characteristics, coupled with our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, improve the applicability of the body of the evidence as they reflect real-world clinical practice. Meta-analysis was feasible for net weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and acute kidney injury. Literature review and narrative analysis explored daily fluid balance; cardiovascular mortality; B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) change; N-terminal-proBNP change; and adverse incidents such as ototoxicity, hypotension, and electrolyte imbalances. Risk of bias assessment revealed two studies with low overall risk, four with some concerns, and one with high risk. All sensitivity analyses excluded trials at high risk of bias. Only narrative analysis was conducted for 'daily fluid balance' due to diverse data presentation methods across two studies (169 participants, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect). Results of narrative analysis varied. For instance, one study reported higher daily fluid balance within the first 24 hours in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group, whereas there was no difference in fluid balance beyond this time point. Continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics may result in mean net weight loss of 0.86 kg more than bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.86 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.28; 5 trials, 497 participants; P < 0.001, I2 = 21%; very low-certainty evidence). Importantly, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias showed there was insufficient evidence for a difference in bodyweight loss between groups (MD 0.70 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.46; 3 trials, 378 participants; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality between continuous infusion and bolus injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.90; 5 trials, 530 participants; P = 0.19, I2 = 4%; low-certainty evidence). Despite sensitivity analysis, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. No trials measured cardiovascular mortality. There may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -4.84 to 2.64; 4 trials, 211 participants; P = 0.57, I2 = 88%; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis improved heterogeneity; however, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. There may be little to no difference in the readmission to hospital between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 3 trials, 400 participants; P = 0.31, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show insufficient evidence for a difference in the readmission to hospital between groups. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse event between continuous infusion and bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.49; 3 trials, 491 participants; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show that continuous infusion may make little to no difference on the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse events compared to the bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of available data comparing two delivery methods of diuretics in acute heart failure found that the current data are insufficient to show superiority of one strategy intervention over the other. Our findings were based on trials meeting stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure validity. Despite previous reviews suggesting advantages of continuous infusion over bolus injections, our review found insufficient evidence to support or refute this. However, our review, which excluded trials with clinical confounders and RCTs with high risk of bias, offers the most robust conclusion to date.

Dressings and securement devices to prevent complications for peripheral arterial catheters.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial catheters (ACs) are used in anaesthesia and intensive care settings for blood sampling and monitoring. Despite their importance, ACs often fail, requiring reinsertion. Dressings and securement devices maintain AC function and prevent complications such as infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of peripheral AC dressing and securement devices to prevent failure and complications in hospitalised people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus up to 16 May 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to 16 May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different dressing and securement devices for the stabilisation of ACs in hospitalised people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool. We resolved disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 1228 participants and 1228 ACs. All included studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. We present the following four comparisons, with the remaining comparisons reported in the main review. Standard polyurethane (SPU) plus tissue adhesive (TA) compared with SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of AC failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study (165 participants) reported catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), thus we are very uncertain whether SPU plus TA impacts on the incidence of CRBSI (very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC dislodgement risk (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.03 to 9.62; I² = 44%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC occlusion rates (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91; I² = 3%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of adverse events with few reported events across groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.09 to 8.33; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bordered polyurethane (BPU) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of BPU impacts rates of AC failure (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to CRBSI compared to SPU (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.45; I² = not applicable as 1 study (60 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to the risk of AC dislodgement compared with SPU (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to occlusion risk compared with SPU (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether BPU impacts on the risk of adverse events compared with SPU (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). SPU plus sutureless securement devices (SSD) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.52; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if SPU plus SSD impacts CRBSI incidence rate with no events in both groups (2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of dislodgement (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.57; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC occlusion (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.48; I² = 38%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts on the risk of adverse events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.19 to 20.24; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Integrated securement dressings compared to SPU: integrated securement dressings may result in little or no difference in risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.84; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in CRBSI incidence with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in the risk of dislodgement (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.04; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), may result in little or no difference in occlusion rates with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.45; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available about the relative clinical effectiveness of AC dressing and securement products. Limitations of current evidence include small sample size, infrequent events, and heterogeneous outcome measurements. We found no clear difference in the incidence of AC failure, CRBSI, or adverse events across AC dressing or securement products including SPU, BPU, SSD, TA, and integrated securement products. The limitations of current evidence means further rigorous RCTs are needed to reduce uncertainty around the use of dressing and securement devices for ACs.

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support.

BACKGROUND: An estimated one-quarter to one-half of people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia. There are different strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anaemia. A restrictive transfusion strategy permits a lower haemoglobin (Hb) level whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher Hb. The most effective and safest strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2023, Issue 2), and eight other databases (including three trial registries) to 21 March 2023. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There were no language, date or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders receiving intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative syntheses were used for heterogeneous outcome measures. Review Manager Web was used to meta-analyse the data. Main outcomes of interest included: all-cause mortality at 31 to 100 days, quality of life, number of participants with any bleeding, number of participants with clinically significant bleeding, serious infections, length of hospital admission (days) and hospital readmission at 0 to 3 months. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met eligibility; eight RCTs and one NRS. Six hundred and forty-four participants were included from six completed RCTs (n = 560) and one completed NRS (n = 84), with two ongoing RCTs consisting of 294 participants (260 adult and 34 paediatric) pending inclusion. Only one completed RCT included children receiving HSCT (n = 6); the other five RCTs only included adults: 239 with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy and 315 receiving HSCT (166 allogeneic and 149 autologous). The transfusion threshold ranged from 70 g/L to 80 g/L for restrictive and from 80 g/L to 120 g/L for liberal strategies. Effects were reported in the summary of findings tables only for the trials that included adults to reduce indirectness due to the limited evidence contributed by the prematurely terminated paediatric trial. Evidence from RCTs Overall, there may be little to no difference in the number of participants who die within 31 to 100 days using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 451 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.70, P=0.99; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 431 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from any bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies; 448 participants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from clinically significant bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (four studies; 511 participants; RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.19, P = 0.60; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who experience serious infections at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies, 451 participants; RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.55, P = 0.17; low-certainty evidence). A restrictive transfusion strategy likely results in little to no difference in the length of hospital admission at 0 to 3 months compared to a liberal strategy (two studies; 388 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity in reporting; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between hospital readmission using a restrictive transfusion strategy compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (one study, 299 participants; RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.50; P = 0.65; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from NRS The evidence is very uncertain whether a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-certainty evidence); or decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-certainty evidence). No NRS reported on the other eligible outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on seven studies and 644 participants. Definite conclusions are challenging given the relatively few included studies, low number of included participants, heterogeneity of intervention and outcome reporting, and overall certainty of evidence. To increase the certainty of the true effect of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes, there is a need for rigorously designed and executed studies. The evidence is largely based on two populations: adults with acute leukaemia receiving intensive chemotherapy and adults with haematologic malignancy requiring HSCT. Despite the addition of 405 participants from three RCTs to the previous review's results, there is still insufficient evidence to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days, we would need a total of 1492 participants to have an 80% chance of detecting, at a 5% level of significance, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are needed overall, particularly in children.

Bias Found in Race-Based GFR Equations that Estimate Kidney Function.

According to this study: A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated bias in the race-based estimated glomerular filtration rate equations used for the diagnosis and management of kidney disease.A multifaceted approach is needed to mitigate racial disparities in chronic kidney disease outcomes.

Mitigating animal methods bias to reduce animal use and improve biomedical translation.

Nonanimal biomedical research methods have advanced rapidly over the last decade making them the first-choice model for many researchers due to improved translatability and avoidance of ethical concerns. Yet confidence in novel nonanimal methods is still being established and they remain a small portion of nonclinical biomedical research, which can lead peer reviewers to evaluate animal-free studies or grant proposals in a biased manner. This "animal methods bias" is the preference for animal-based research methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods are suitable. It affects the fair consideration of animal-free biomedical research, hampering the uptake and dissemination of these approaches by putting pressure on researchers to conduct animal experiments and potentially perpetuating the use of poorly translatable model systems. An international team of researchers and advocates called the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB) aims to provide concrete evidence of the existence and consequences of this bias and to develop and implement solutions towards overcoming it. The COLAAB recently developed the first of several mitigation tools: the Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing, which is described herein along with broader implications and future directions of this work.

[Interpreting the evidence. Reducing subjectivity in appraising the evidence calls for a return to teaching evidence-based medicine.] / L'interpretazione delle evidenze. Per ridurre la soggettività nella lettura delle prove serve tornare a insegnare l'evidence-based medicine.

The interpretation of clinical research evidence is still characterized by wide subjectivity. This subjectivity is also visible when comparing guidelines and recommendations developed by institutions and learned societies. It is often due to bias and conflicts of interest experienced by the members of guideline panels: thus, the role of editors and publishers of journals and scientific media becomes increasingly important, and they should return to careful oversight of the content of what is published. To address the problem, however, it is necessary to return to teaching evidence-based medicine in order to restore its function as a "North star" in clinical practice and public health decision-making.

Technical Note: Significant Positive Bias in Lower Concentrations but Negative Bias in Higher Concentrations in Testosterone Measurement Using Beckman Access Immunoassay Compared to a Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Reference Method.

OBJECTIVE: Testosterone is the principal male sex hormone and is secreted primarily by the testes. In most clinical laboratories testosterone is routinely measured for diagnosis of male hypogonadism or androgen excess in females using FDA approved immunoassays. We compared testosterone values measured by Beckman access immunoassay with those measured by a reference LC-MS/MS method. METHODS: Testosterone was measured in 36 patients using left over serum or plasma specimens by both Beckman immunoassay on the DXI 800 analyzer and a reference LC-MS/MS method. RESULTS: We observed overall significant negative bias of approximately 31.9 % when testosterone values obtained by the reference LC-MS/MS method were plotted in the x-axis and the corresponding testosterone values using the immunoassay in the y-axis, as regression equation was y=0.6887x+38.81 (n=36). The corresponding Deming regression was y=0.6639x+34.7163. However, in eight specimens with low testosterone concentrations, immunoassays significantly overestimated testosterone concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Immunoassays may underestimate the true testosterone concentration in males but overestimate in females with low testosterone concentration. Therefore, for diagnosis of hypogonadism in males and androgen excess in females, testosterone values obtained by Beckman Access immunoassay on the DXI 800 analyzer should be interpreted with caution.

Addressing bias in preterm birth research: The role of advanced imputation techniques for missing race and ethnicity in perinatal health data.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) and Bayesian Improved First Name Surname Geocoding (BIFSG) in estimating race and ethnicity, and how they influence odds ratios for preterm birth. METHODS: We analyzed hospital birth admission electronic health records (EHR) data (N = 9985). We created two simulation sets with 40 % of race and ethnicity data missing randomly or more likely for non-Hispanic black birthing people who had preterm birth. We calculated C-statistics to evaluate how accurately BISG and BIFSG estimate race and ethnicity. We examined the association between race and ethnicity and preterm birth using logistic regression and reported odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: BISG and BIFSG showed high accuracy for most racial and ethnic categories (C-statistics = 0.94-0.97, 95 % confidence intervals [CI] = 0.92-0.97). When race and ethnicity were not missing at random, BISG (OR = 1.25, CI = 0.97-1.62) and BIFSG (OR = 1.38, CI = 1.08-1.76) resulted in positive estimates mirroring the true association (OR = 1.68, CI = 1.34-2.09) for Non-Hispanic Black birthing people, while traditional methods showed contrasting estimates (Complete case OR = 0.62, CI = 0.41-0.94; multiple imputation OR = 0.63, CI = 0.40-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: BISG and BIFSG accurately estimate missing race and ethnicity in perinatal EHR data, decreasing bias in preterm birth research, and are recommended over traditional methods to reduce potential bias.

Assessing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials With Large Language Models.

Importance: Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate the labor-intensive process of systematic reviews. However, the exact methods and reliability remain uncertain. Objective: To explore the feasibility and reliability of using LLMs to assess risk of bias (ROB) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey study was conducted between August 10, 2023, and October 30, 2023. Thirty RCTs were selected from published systematic reviews. Main Outcomes and Measures: A structured prompt was developed to guide ChatGPT (LLM 1) and Claude (LLM 2) in assessing the ROB in these RCTs using a modified version of the Cochrane ROB tool developed by the CLARITY group at McMaster University. Each RCT was assessed twice by both models, and the results were documented. The results were compared with an assessment by 3 experts, which was considered a criterion standard. Correct assessment rates, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 scores were calculated to reflect accuracy, both overall and for each domain of the Cochrane ROB tool; consistent assessment rates and Cohen κ were calculated to gauge consistency; and assessment time was calculated to measure efficiency. Performance between the 2 models was compared using risk differences. Results: Both models demonstrated high correct assessment rates. LLM 1 reached a mean correct assessment rate of 84.5% (95% CI, 81.5%-87.3%), and LLM 2 reached a significantly higher rate of 89.5% (95% CI, 87.0%-91.8%). The risk difference between the 2 models was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.09). In most domains, domain-specific correct rates were around 80% to 90%; however, sensitivity below 0.80 was observed in domains 1 (random sequence generation), 2 (allocation concealment), and 6 (other concerns). Domains 4 (missing outcome data), 5 (selective outcome reporting), and 6 had F1 scores below 0.50. The consistent rates between the 2 assessments were 84.0% for LLM 1 and 87.3% for LLM 2. LLM 1's κ exceeded 0.80 in 7 and LLM 2's in 8 domains. The mean (SD) time needed for assessment was 77 (16) seconds for LLM 1 and 53 (12) seconds for LLM 2. Conclusions: In this survey study of applying LLMs for ROB assessment, LLM 1 and LLM 2 demonstrated substantial accuracy and consistency in evaluating RCTs, suggesting their potential as supportive tools in systematic review processes.

Exploration of registration and the risk of bias in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the predominant type in acupuncture clinical research, and the publications have increased rapidly in recent years, but there is a prevalence of the high risk of bias and poor methodological design in acupuncture RCTs. Clinical trial registration can improve the transparency and credibility of studies by disclosing key information in advance. However, the registration in acupuncture RCTs is not satisfactory, as there is widespread of the under-registration, inconsistency with published studies and insufficient disclosure of key methodological information. Whether registration can reduce the risk of bias in acupuncture RCTs and improve data transparency has not been fully explored. Therefore, we constructed this study to investigate the association between registration and risk of bias and data sharing level in acupuncture RCTs. METHODS: Seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases will be systematically searched between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2024, for acupuncture RCTs. Two reviewers will independently extract data using a predefined standardised format and perform secondary validation. The characteristics and data sharing level of the included studies will be summarised. The risk of bias of included RCTs will be assessed by the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The risk of bias and registration in acupuncture RCTs will be analysed by logistic or quantile regression analyses (depending on the number of minimum events). The data sharing level and registration will be analysed by quantile regression analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the systematic review aims to consolidate info from published sources, ethical approval is not necessary for this study. The study's findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal and disseminated via conference presentations. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework Registries.

Applying oversampling before cross-validation will lead to high bias in radiomics.

Class imbalance is often unavoidable for radiomic data collected from clinical routine. It can create problems during classifier training since the majority class could dominate the minority class. Consequently, resampling methods like oversampling or undersampling are applied to the data to class-balance the data. However, the resampling must not be applied upfront to all data because it would lead to data leakage and, therefore, to erroneous results. This study aims to measure the extent of this bias. Five-fold cross-validation with 30 repeats was performed using a set of 15 radiomic datasets to train predictive models. The training involved two scenarios: first, the models were trained correctly by applying the resampling methods during the cross-validation. Second, the models were trained incorrectly by performing the resampling on all the data before cross-validation. The bias was defined empirically as the difference between the best-performing models in both scenarios in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and the Brier score. In addition, a simulation study was performed on a randomly generated dataset for verification. The results demonstrated that incorrectly applying the oversampling methods to all data resulted in a large positive bias (up to 0.34 in AUC, 0.33 in sensitivity, 0.31 in specificity, and 0.37 in balanced accuracy). The bias depended on the data balance, and approximately an increase of 0.10 in the AUC was observed for each increase in imbalance. The models also showed a bias in calibration measured using the Brier score, which differed by up to -0.18 between the correctly and incorrectly trained models. The undersampling methods were not affected significantly by bias. These results emphasize that any resampling method should be applied correctly only to the training data to avoid data leakage and, subsequently, biased model performance and calibration.

How does prestige bias affect information recall during a pandemic?

The prestige theory of evolution states that our memory has an intrinsic bias to memorize information from someone of prestige. However, the evidence for information recall is mainly focused on content bias. Considering that the prestige bias can be advantageous in selecting information in contexts of uncertainty, this study assessed whether, in the scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic, the prestige bias would be favored over other models that do not possess the prestige spirit characteristics. The study was conducted through an online experiment, where participants were subjected to reading fictitious text, followed by a surprise recollection. Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model, Poisson family, and logistic regression. The results showed that prestige is only prioritized in the recall due to the family model and does not present any difference from the other models tested. However, it influenced the recall of specific information, suggesting its role as a factor of cultural attraction. Furthermore, we observed that trust in science-oriented profiles can influence the recall of information during a health crisis. Finally, this study highlights the complexity of the functioning of the human mind and how several factors can act simultaneously in the recall of information.

Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Transcutaneous bilirubinometry for detecting jaundice in term or late preterm neonates.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society both advise that all newborns should undergo bilirubin screening before leaving the hospital, and this has become the standard practice in both countries. However, the US Preventive Task Force has found no strong evidence to suggest that this practice of universal screening for bilirubin reduces the occurrence of significant outcomes such as bilirubin-induced neurologic dysfunction or kernicterus. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of transcutaneous screening compared to visual inspection for hyperbilirubinemia to prevent the readmission of newborns (infants greater than 35 weeks' gestation) for phototherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, and ISRCTN in June 2023. We also searched conference proceedings, and the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, cluster-randomized, or prospective cohort studies with control arm that evaluated the use of transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) screening for hyperbilirubinemia in newborns before hospital discharge. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT (1858 participants) that met our inclusion criteria. The study included 1858 African newborns at 35 weeks' gestation or greater who were receiving routine care at a well-baby nursery, and were randomly recruited prior to discharge to undergo TcB screening. The study had good methodologic quality. TcB screening versus visual assessment of hyperbilirubinemia in newborns: - may reduce readmission to the hospital for hyperbilirubinemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46; P < 0.0001; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably has little or no effect on the rate of exchange transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 14.16; low-certainty evidence); - may increase the number of newborns who require phototherapy prior to discharge (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.55; moderate-certainty evidence). - probably has little or no effect on the rate of acute bilirubin encephalopathy (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18; low-certainty evidence). The study did not evaluate or report cost of care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TcB screening may reduce readmission for hyperbilirubinemia compared to visual inspection. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that TcB screening probably has little or no effect on the rate of exchange transfusion compared to visual inspection. However, moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TcB screening may increase the number of newborns that require phototherapy before discharge compared to visual inspection. Low-certainty evidence suggests that TcB screening probably has little or no effect on the rate of acute bilirubin encephalopathy compared to visual inspection. Given that we have only identified one RCT, further studies are necessary to determine whether TcB screening can help to reduce readmission and complications related to neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. In settings with limited newborn follow-up after hospital discharge, identifying newborns at risk of severe hyperbilirubinemia before hospital discharge will be important to plan targeted follow-up of these infants.

Non-pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) accounts for approximately 43% of frontotemporal dementias and is mainly characterised by a progressive impairment of speech and communication abilities. Three clinical variants have been identified: (a) non-fluent/agrammatic, (b) semantic, and (c) logopenic/phonological PPA variants. There is currently no curative treatment for PPA, and the disease progresses inexorably over time, with devastating effects on speech and communication ability, functional status, and quality of life. Several non-pharmacological interventions that may improve symptoms (e.g. different forms of language training and non-invasive brain stimulation) have been investigated in people with PPA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for people with PPA on word retrieval (our primary outcome), global language functions, cognition, quality of life, and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's trial register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), four other databases and two other trial registers. The latest searches were run on 26 January 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in people with PPA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: There were insufficient data available to conduct the network meta-analyses that we had originally planned (due to trial data being insufficiently reported or not reported at all, as well as the heterogeneous content of the included interventions). Therefore, we provide a descriptive summary of the included studies and results. We included 10 studies, with a total of 132 participants, evaluating non-pharmacological interventions. These were: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as stand-alone treatments (used by two and one studies, respectively); tDCS combined with semantic and phonological word-retrieval training (five studies); tDCS combined with semantic word-retrieval training (one study); and tDCS combined with phonological word-retrieval training (one study). Results for our primary outcome of word retrieval were mixed. For the two studies that investigated the effects of tDCS as stand-alone treatment compared to placebo ("sham") tDCS, we rated the results as having very low-certainty evidence. One study found a significant beneficial effect on word retrieval after active tDCS; one study did not report any significant effects in favour of the active tDCS group. Five studies investigated tDCS administered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal cortex, left frontotemporal region, or the temporoparietal cortex, combined with semantic and phonological word-retrieval training. The most consistent finding was enhancement of word-retrieval ability for trained items immediately after the intervention, when behavioural training was combined with active tDCS compared to behavioural training plus sham tDCS. We found mixed effects for untrained items and maintenance of treatment effects during follow-up assessments. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low in all studies. One study investigated tDCS combined with semantic word-retrieval training. Training was provided across 15 sessions with a frequency of three to five sessions per week, depending on the personal preferences of the participants. tDCS targeted the left frontotemporal region. The study included three participants: two received 1 mA stimulation and one received 2 mA stimulation. The study showed mixed results. We rated it as very low-certainty evidence. One study investigated tDCS combined with phonological word-retrieval training. Training was again provided across 15 sessions over a period of three weeks. tDCS targeted the left inferior frontal gyrus. This study showed a significantly more pronounced improvement for trained and untrained words in favour of the group that had received active tDCS, but we rated the certainty of the evidence as very low. One study compared active rTMS applied to an individually determined target site to active rTMS applied to a control site (vertex) for effects on participants' word retrieval. This study demonstrated better word retrieval for active rTMS administered to individually determined target brain regions than in the control intervention, but we rated the results as having a very low certainty of evidence. Four studies assessed overall language ability, three studies assessed cognition, five studies assessed potential adverse effects of brain stimulation, and one study investigated quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no high-certainty evidence to inform clinical decision-making regarding non-pharmacological treatment selection for people with PPA. Preliminary evidence suggests that the combination of active tDCS with specific language therapy may improve impaired word retrieval for specifically trained items beyond the effects of behavioural treatment alone. However, more research is needed, including high-quality RCTs with detailed descriptions of participants and methods, and consideration of outcomes such as quality of life, depressive symptoms, and overall cognitive functioning. Moreover, studies assessing optimal treatments (i.e. behavioural interventions, brain stimulation interventions, and their combinations) for individual patients and PPA subtypes are needed. We were not able to conduct the planned (network) meta-analyses due to missing data that could not be obtained from most of the authors, a general lack of RCTs in the field, and heterogeneous interventions in eligible trials. Journals should implement a mandatory data-sharing requirement to assure transparency and accessibility of data from clinical trials.