Development of a search filter to retrieve reports of interrupted time series studies from MEDLINE and PubMed.

BACKGROUND: Interrupted time series (ITS) studies contribute importantly to systematic reviews of population-level interventions. We aimed to develop and validate search filters to retrieve ITS studies in MEDLINE and PubMed. METHODS: A total of 1017 known ITS studies (published 2013-2017) were analysed using text mining to generate candidate terms. A control set of 1398 time-series studies were used to select differentiating terms. Various combinations of candidate terms were iteratively tested to generate three search filters. An independent set of 700 ITS studies was used to validate the filters' sensitivities. The filters were test-run in Ovid MEDLINE and the records randomly screened for ITS studies to determine their precision. Finally, all MEDLINE filters were translated to PubMed format and their sensitivities in PubMed were estimated. RESULTS: Three search filters were created in MEDLINE: a precision-maximising filter with high precision (78%; 95% CI 74%-82%) but moderate sensitivity (63%; 59%-66%), most appropriate when there are limited resources to screen studies; a sensitivity-and-precision-maximising filter with higher sensitivity (81%; 77%-83%) but lower precision (32%; 28%-36%), providing a balance between expediency and comprehensiveness; and a sensitivity-maximising filter with high sensitivity (88%; 85%-90%) but likely very low precision, useful when combined with specific content terms. Similar sensitivity estimates were found for PubMed versions. CONCLUSION: Our filters strike different balances between comprehensiveness and screening workload and suit different research needs. Retrieval of ITS studies would be improved if authors identified the ITS design in the titles.

The effects of probiotics administration during pregnancy on preeclampsia and associated maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on probiotic administration during pregnancy for the prevention of preeclampsia and its effects on related maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Six databases were systematically searched for eligible studies, namely Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus, and the Maternity and Infant Care Database, from inception to August 2, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of probiotic administration on women during any stage of pregnancy were eligible for inclusion. METHODS: The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under identifier CRD42023421613. Evaluating study eligibility, extracting data, assessing risk of bias (ROB-2 tool), and rating certainty (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) were conducted independently by 2 authors. The primary outcomes were incidence of preeclampsia, eclampsia, and maternal mortality. A meta-analysis was performed, and the results were reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 29 trials (7735 pregnant women) met the eligibility criteria. There was heterogeneity across the trials in the population of enrolled women and the type of probiotic tested (20 different strains), although most used oral administration. Probiotics may make no difference to the risk of preeclampsia (risk ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.53; 11 trials; 2401 women; low certainty evidence), preterm birth at <37 weeks' gestation (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.30; 18 trials, 4016 women; low certainty evidence), or gestational age at delivery (mean difference, -0.03 weeks [≈0.2 days]; 95% confidence interval, -0.16 to 0.10 weeks [≈ -1.1 to 0.7 days]; 13 trials, 2194 women; low certainty evidence). It is difficult to assess the effects of probiotics on other secondary outcomes because the evidence was of very low certainty, however, no benefits or harms were observed. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that probiotic supplementation does not affect the risk for preeclampsia. Further high-quality trials are needed to definitively assess the benefits and possible harms of probiotic supplementation during pregnancy. There is also a lack of data from trials that included women who were undernourished or who experienced microbial dysbiosis and for whom probiotic supplementation might be useful.

Effectiveness of care bundles for prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Care bundles are a promising approach to reducing postpartum hemorrhage-related morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of care bundles for postpartum hemorrhage prevention and/or treatment. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Maternity and Infant Care Database, and Global Index Medicus (inception to June 9, 2023) and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last 5 years) using a phased search strategy, combining terms for postpartum hemorrhage and care bundles. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed studies evaluating postpartum hemorrhage-related care bundles were included. Care bundles were defined as interventions comprising ≥3 components implemented collectively, concurrently, or in rapid succession. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and before-after studies (controlled or uncontrolled) were eligible. METHODS: Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (nonrandomized studies). For controlled studies, we reported risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with certainty of evidence determined using GRADE. For uncontrolled studies, we used effect direction tables and summarized results narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included for analysis. For prevention-only bundles (2 studies), low-certainty evidence suggests possible benefits in reducing blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and intensive care unit stay, and maternal well-being. For treatment-only bundles (9 studies), high-certainty evidence shows that the E-MOTIVE intervention reduced risks of composite severe morbidity (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.50) and blood transfusion for bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, severe postpartum hemorrhage, and mean blood loss. One nonrandomized trial and 7 uncontrolled studies suggest that other postpartum hemorrhage treatment bundles might reduce blood loss and severe postpartum hemorrhage, but this is uncertain. For combined prevention/treatment bundles (11 studies), low-certainty evidence shows that the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative care bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.72). Ten uncontrolled studies variably showed possible benefits, no effects, or harms for other bundle types. Nearly all uncontrolled studies did not use suitable statistical methods for single-group pretest-posttest comparisons and should thus be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: The E-MOTIVE intervention improves postpartum hemorrhage-related outcomes among women delivering vaginally, and the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity. Other bundle designs warrant further effectiveness research before implementation is contemplated.

Variation observed in consensus judgments between pairs of reviewers when assessing the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research using the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) tool and determine inter-rater agreement in assessments. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assembled a random sample of 42 meta-analyses of nutrition research. Eight assessors were randomly assigned to one of four pairs. Each pair assessed 21 randomly assigned meta-analyses, and each meta-analysis was assessed by two pairs. We calculated raw percentage agreement and chance corrected agreement using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (AC) in consensus judgments between pairs. RESULTS: Across the eight signaling questions in the ROB-ME tool, raw percentage agreement ranged from 52% to 100%, and Gwet's AC ranged from 0.39 to 0.76. For the risk-of-bias judgment, the raw percentage agreement was 76% (95% confidence interval 60% to 92%) and Gwet's AC was 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.80). In seven (17%) meta-analyses, either one or both pairs judged the risk of bias due to missing evidence as "low risk". CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated substantial variation in assessments in consensus judgments between pairs for the signaling questions and overall risk-of-bias judgments. More tutorials and training are needed to help researchers apply the ROB-ME tool more consistently.

Self-collection of samples for group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sample self-collection for reproductive tract infection diagnosis has been found to offer greater convenience, privacy, autonomy, and expanded access to testing in non-pregnant adults. This review aimed to determine whether sample self-collection is as accurate as provider-collection for detection of group B streptococcus colonisation in pregnancy and whether a strategy of self-collection compared to provider-collection might improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes. METHODS: We searched CINAHL Plus, Medline, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2022. Eligible studies compared self-collected and provider-collected samples taken from the same participants or participants randomised to either self-collection or provider-collection for reproductive tract infection testing using the same test and testing method in pregnant individuals. We included trials and observational studies. Reviewers assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist and independently extracted data. Sensitivity and specificity for group B streptococcus colonisation of self-collected compared to provider-collected samples were pooled using a bivariate, random-effects, meta-analytic model. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023396573). RESULTS: The search identified 5909 references, of which eleven diagnostic accuracy group B streptococcus studies were included (n = 3269 participants). No studies assessed the effects of self-collection in pregnancy on health outcomes. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. Pooled sensitivities of self-collected samples for group B streptococcus detection were 82% (95% CI: 66-91%; I2 = 68.85%) in four trials (n = 1226) and 91% (95% CI: 83-96%; I2 = 37.38%) in seven non-randomised studies (n = 2043). Pooled specificities were 99% (95% CI: 98-99%; I2 = 12.08%) and 97% (95% CI: 94-99%; I2 = 72.50%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collected samples for group B streptococcus detection in pregnancy had high specificity compared to provider-collection, but lower sensitivity, particularly for included trials. Studies investigating the effect of self-collection on health outcomes, and further higher quality trials comparing accuracy of self-collection to provider-collection, are required.