The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce: pregnancy and perinatal guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than non-pregnant women of a similar age. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that evidenced-based guidance was needed, and that it would need to be updated rapidly. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce provided a resource to guide care for people with COVID-19, including during pregnancy. Care for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies was included as a priority when the Taskforce was set up, with a Pregnancy and Perinatal Care Panel convened to guide clinical practice. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: As of May 2022, the Taskforce has made seven specific recommendations on care for pregnant women and those who have recently given birth. This includes supporting usual practices for the mode of birth, umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, and using antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate as clinically indicated. There are 11 recommendations for COVID-19-specific treatments, including conditional recommendations for using remdesivir, tocilizumab and sotrovimab. Finally, there are recommendations not to use several disease-modifying treatments for the treatment of COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The recommendations are continually updated to reflect new evidence, and the most up-to-date guidance is available online (https://covid19evidence.net.au). CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINES: The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been a critical component of the infrastructure to support Australian maternity care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Taskforce has shown that a rapid living guidelines approach is feasible and acceptable.

Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health information is readily accessible but is of variable quality. General knowledge about how to assess whether claims about health interventions are trustworthy is not common, so people's health decisions can be ill-informed, unnecessarily costly and even unsafe. This review aims to identify and evaluate studies of educational interventions designed to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: We searched multiple electronic databases and sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria included all study types that included a comparison, any participants (except health professionals or health professional students) and educational interventions aimed at improving people's understanding of one or more of the key concepts considered necessary for assessing health intervention claims. Knowledge and/or understanding of concepts or skills relevant to evaluating health information were our primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included behaviour, confidence, attitude and satisfaction with the educational interventions. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were summarised using descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: Among 24 eligible studies, 14 were randomised trials and 10 used other study designs. There was heterogeneity across study participants, settings and educational intervention type, content and delivery. The risk of bias was high in at least one domain for all randomised studies. Most studies measured outcomes immediately after the educational intervention, with few measuring later. In most of the comparisons, measures of knowledge and skills were better among those who had received educational interventions than among controls, and some of these differences were statistically significant. The effects on secondary outcomes were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people's knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033103.

Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims-The "Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library" (CARL).

BACKGROUND: People are frequently confronted with untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. Uncritical acceptance of these claims can lead to poor, and sometimes dangerous, treatment decisions, and wasted time and money. Resources to help people learn to think critically about treatment claims are scarce, and they are widely scattered. Furthermore, very few learning-resources have been assessed to see if they improve knowledge and behavior. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to develop the Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library (CARL). This library was to be in the form of a database containing learning resources for those who are responsible for encouraging critical thinking about treatment claims, and was to be made available online. We wished to include resources for groups we identified as 'intermediaries' of knowledge, i.e. teachers of schoolchildren, undergraduates and graduates, for example those teaching evidence-based medicine, or those communicating treatment claims to the public. In selecting resources, we wished to draw particular attention to those resources that had been formally evaluated, for example, by the creators of the resource or independent research groups. METHODS: CARL was populated with learning-resources identified from a variety of sources-two previously developed but unmaintained inventories; systematic reviews of learning-interventions; online and database searches; and recommendations by members of the project group and its advisors. The learning-resources in CARL were organised by 'Key Concepts' needed to judge the trustworthiness of treatment claims, and were made available online by the James Lind Initiative in Testing Treatments interactive (TTi) English (www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources).TTi English also incorporated the database of Key Concepts and the Claim Evaluation Tools developed through the Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) project (informedhealthchoices.org). RESULTS: We have created a database of resources called CARL, which currently contains over 500 open-access learning-resources in a variety of formats: text, audio, video, webpages, cartoons, and lesson materials. These are aimed primarily at 'Intermediaries', that is, 'teachers', 'communicators', 'advisors', 'researchers', as well as for independent 'learners'. The resources included in CARL are currently accessible at www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that ready access to CARL will help to promote the critical thinking about treatment claims, needed to help improve healthcare choices.

A qualitative study exploring high school students' understanding of, and attitudes towards, health information and claims.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to health claims, particularly in the media and social media, is pervasive, and the information conveyed is often inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. Some young people of high school ages are already making decisions about using readily available health interventions (such as sports drinks and beauty products).Although previous research has assessed adults' understanding of health claims, no research has examined this issue in young adults who are attending high school. OBJECTIVE: To explore high school students' understanding of, and attitudes towards, concepts relevant to assessing health information and claims. DESIGN: A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 27 Australian high school students. Responses were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. Three themes emerged as follows: (i) Variability in sources of health information and claims, and general understanding of their creation and accuracy of content, (ii) The use of substitute indicators to assess health information and claims and make judgements about their trustworthiness, (iii) Uncertainty about, and literal interpretation of, the language of health claims. Despite general scepticism of health claims and admitted uncertainty of research terminology, many students were generally convinced. Students had poor understanding about how health claims are generated and tended to rely on substitute indicators, such as endorsements, when evaluating the believability of claims. CONCLUSION: School students' lack of awareness of basic health research processes and methods of assessing the accuracy of health information and claims makes them vulnerable to distorted and misleading health information. This restricts their ability to make informed health decisions - a skill that increases in importance as they become adults.

Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Health information has become readily accessible through mass media, and people are playing a more active and autonomous role in their health. Much of the health information that was previously only available to health professionals is now directly accessible to the public. Consequently, people often navigate vast amounts of health information on their own, typically with little knowledge about how to evaluate it or the need to do so. Health information remains essentially unregulated, and widespread problems and concerns with the quality of health information have been noted. In addition to the variable quality of health information, inconsistent and/or inappropriate use of related terminology (e.g. 'evidence-based' and 'clinically proven') can be confusing to the public, who are ill-prepared to critically examine claims. The general public are not trained in the fundamentals of health research and do not typically possess the knowledge and skills to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of information about health interventions. Without this, the public are vulnerable to acting on inaccurate or incomplete health information and making ill-informed health decisions. With this review, we intend to identify and assess educational interventions which have been designed to improve people's ability to understand key concepts relevant to evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: This systematic review of the literature will use a search strategy that has been developed in conjunction with a Health Sciences Librarian who has expertise in systematic review searching to identify relevant studies. Databases to be searched include the following: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ERIC. Attempts to identify unpublished studies and ongoing trials will also be made. Two review authors will independently screen search results and assess studies for eligibility. Studies which aim to improve participants' understanding of the key concepts relevant to evaluating the effects (or the interpretation of results) of health interventions will be included. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, controlled studies with only post-test measures, and interrupted time series studies will be eligible for inclusion. We will contact study authors to clarify any missing details/data. Due to the nature of the systematic review question and the expectation of heterogeneity in study design, interventions, and outcomes, we intend to take a narrative approach to data synthesis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033103.

The effect of pre-donation hypotension on whole blood donor adverse reactions: a systematic review.

Blood services are reliant upon healthy blood donors to provide a safe and adequate supply of blood products. Inappropriate variables contained within blood donor exclusion criteria can defer potentially appropriate donors. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effect of low pre-donation blood pressure, as compared with normal blood pressure, on adverse events in allogeneic whole blood donors. A systematic review was performed using highly sensitive search strategies within five databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science) from inception date until April 12, 2013. Out of 8305 records, 10 observational studies were identified that addressed the question. Five of these studies (with a combined total of 1,482,020 donations and 2903 donors) included either a statistical analysis or an appropriate study design that controlled for possible confounding factors. Based on the currently available evidence, hypotension has not been shown to be an independent predictive factor for donor complications. However, the overall quality of evidence was rather limited and rated 'low,' using the GRADE approach. In conclusion there is currently no evidence that hypotensive blood donors have a greater risk for donor adverse events compared with their normotensive counterparts.

Blood type diets lack supporting evidence: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Diets that are based on the ABO blood group system have been promoted over the past decade and claim to improve health and decrease risk of disease. To our knowledge, the evidence to support the effectiveness of blood type diets has not previously been assessed in the scientific literature. OBJECTIVE: In this current systematic review, published studies that presented data related to blood type diets were identified and critically appraised by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DESIGN: A systematic search was performed to answer the following question: In humans grouped according to blood type, does adherence to a specific diet improve health and/or decrease risk of disease compared with nonadherence to the diet? The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase were systematically searched by using sensitive search strategies. RESULTS: Sixteen articles were identified from a total of 1415 screened references, with only one article that was considered eligible according to the selection criteria. The identified article studied the variation between LDL-cholesterol responses of different MNS blood types to a low-fat diet. However, the study did not directly answer the current question. No studies that showed the health effects of ABO blood type diets were identified. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence currently exists to validate the purported health benefits of blood type diets. To validate these claims, studies are required that compare the health outcomes between participants adhering to a particular blood type diet (experimental group) and participants continuing a standard diet (control group) within a particular blood type population.

Breast clinic triage tool: telephone assessment of new referrals.

Efficient systems to triage increasing numbers of new referrals to breast clinics are needed, to optimise the management of patients with cancer and benign disease. A tool was developed to triage the urgency of referrals and allocate the most appropriate clinician consultation (surgeon or breast physician (BP)). 259 consecutive new referrals were triaged using the tool. 100% new cancers and 256 (98.8%) referrals overall were triaged to both appropriate category of urgency and the appropriate clinician. This triage tool provides a simple method for assessing new referrals to a breast clinic and can be easily delivered by trained administrative staff by telephone.

Lactational mastitis and breast abscess - diagnosis and management in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Lactational mastitis is common, affecting one in 5 breastfeeding women. As well as causing significant discomfort, it is a frequent reason for women to stop breastfeeding. OBJECTIVE: This article outlines an evidence based approach to the diagnosis and management of lactational breast infections in general practice. DISCUSSION: Lactational mastitis is usually bacterial in aetiology and can generally be effectively managed with oral antibiotics. Infections that do not improve rapidly require further investigation for breast abscess and nonlactational causes of inflammation, including the rare cause of inflammatory breast cancer. In addition to antibiotics, management of lactational breast infections include symptomatic treatment, assessment of the infant's attachment to the breast, and reassurance, emotional support, education and support for ongoing breastfeeding.