Effectiveness and safety of measures to prevent infections and other complications associated with peripheral intravenous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) contribute substantially to the global burden of infections. This systematic review assessed 24 infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions to prevent PIVC-associated infections and other complications. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, WHO Global Index Medicus, CINAHL and reference lists for controlled studies, from January 1, 1980-March 16, 2023. We dually selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and rated the certainty of evidence (COE). For outcomes with three or more trials, we conducted Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 105 studies met our prespecified eligibility criteria, addressing 16 of the 24 research questions; no studies were identified for eight research questions.Based on findings of low to high COE, wearing gloves reduced the risk for overall adverse events related to insertion compared to no gloves (one non-randomised controlled trial [RCT]; adjusted risk ratio [RR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.85), and catheter removal based on defined schedules potentially resulted in a lower phlebitis/thrombophlebitis incidence (10 RCTs; RR: 0.74, 95% credible interval 0.49-1.01) compared to clinically indicated removal in adults. In neonates, chlorhexidine reduced the phlebitis score compared to non-chlorhexidine-containing disinfection (one RCT; 0.14 versus 0.68, p = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their frequent use and concern about PIVC-associated complications, this review underscores the urgent need for more high-quality studies on effective IPC methods regarding safe PIVC management. In the absence of valid evidence, adherence to standard precaution measures and documentation remain the most important principles to curb PIVC complications.

[WHO Guidelines on Mental Health at Work]. / WHO-Leitlinie zur psychischen Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz.

The World Health Organization (WHO) published the "Guidelines on mental health at work" in September 2022. WHO developed the guidelines in accordance with WHO standards. The summary of this guideline was translated into German by the team of the WHO Collaborating Center for Evidence-based Medicine at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria) for use in German-speaking countries. An estimated 15+% of working-age adults have had some mental disorder at some point of time in their lives. This can lead to impaired capacity to work, resulting in reduction in productivity and performance, and ability to work safely, or in difficulties in retaining their jobs or obtaining gainful employment. The guidelines contain 12 recommendations. These provide evidence-based global public health guidance on organizational interventions, manager and worker training, and individual interventions for the promotion of positive mental health and prevention of mental health conditions, as well as recommendations on returning to work following absence associated with mental health conditions and gaining employment for people living with mental health conditions. Through the provision of these WHO recommendations, it is anticipated that the guidelines will facilitate national and workplace-level actions in the areas of policy development, service planning and delivery in the domains of mental and occupational health.

[WHO Recommendations for Care of the Preterm or Low-Birth-Weight Infant]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Versorgung von Frühgeborenen und Neugeborenen mit niedrigem Geburtsgewicht.

BACKGROUND: Premature infants (gestation age<37 weeks) and low-birth-weight infants (< 2.5 kg) require complex care to ensure their survival, growth and neurological development. Increased risk for developmental disorders, infections, and challenges with nutrition and body temperature regulation require comprehensive measures in care. AIM: The aim of this guideline was to improve the care of premature and low-birth-weight infants through updated recommendations. METHODS: The recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) have been implemented in this guideline in accordance with the WHO handbook for guideline development. This publication has been translated into German by staff members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: This guideline includes 11 strong and 14 conditional recommendations, of which 16 describe preventive and promotive care, 6 recommendations about care for complications and 3 for family involvement and support, as well as one statement of good practice.

Pharmacological interventions for the management of children and adolescents living with obesity-An update of a Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses.

IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of anti-obesity medications for children and adolescents is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the benefits and harms of anti-obesity medication. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP (1/1/16-17/3/23). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials ≥6 months in people <19 years living with obesity. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening, data extraction and quality assessment conducted in duplicate, independently. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Body mass index (BMI): 95th percentile BMI, adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: Thirty-five trials (N = 4331), follow-up: 6-24 months; age: 8.8-16.3 years; BMI: 26.2-41.7 kg/m2. Moderate certainty evidence demonstrated a -1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.27 to -1.14)-unit BMI reduction, ranging from -0.8 to -5.9 units between individual drugs with semaglutide producing the largest reduction of -5.88 kg/m2 (95% CI: -6.99 to -4.77, N = 201). Drug type explained ~44% of heterogeneity. Low certainty evidence demonstrated reduction in 95th percentile BMI: -11.88 percentage points (95% CI: -18.43 to -5.30, N = 668). Serious adverse events and study discontinuation due to adverse events did not differ between medications and comparators, but medication dose adjustments were higher compared to comparator (10.6% vs 1.7%; RR = 3.74 [95% CI: 1.51 to 9.26], I2 = 15%), regardless of approval status. There was a trend towards improved quality of life. Evidence gaps exist for children, psychosocial outcomes, comorbidities and weight loss maintenance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Anti-obesity medications in addition to behaviour change improve BMI but may require dose adjustment, with 1 in 100 adolescents experiencing a serious adverse event.

Data extraction for evidence synthesis using a large language model: A proof-of-concept study.

Data extraction is a crucial, yet labor-intensive and error-prone part of evidence synthesis. To date, efforts to harness machine learning for enhancing efficiency of the data extraction process have fallen short of achieving sufficient accuracy and usability. With the release of large language models (LLMs), new possibilities have emerged to increase efficiency and accuracy of data extraction for evidence synthesis. The objective of this proof-of-concept study was to assess the performance of an LLM (Claude 2) in extracting data elements from published studies, compared with human data extraction as employed in systematic reviews. Our analysis utilized a convenience sample of 10 English-language, open-access publications of randomized controlled trials included in a single systematic review. We selected 16 distinct types of data, posing varying degrees of difficulty (160 data elements across 10 studies). We used the browser version of Claude 2 to upload the portable document format of each publication and then prompted the model for each data element. Across 160 data elements, Claude 2 demonstrated an overall accuracy of 96.3% with a high test-retest reliability (replication 1: 96.9%; replication 2: 95.0% accuracy). Overall, Claude 2 made 6 errors on 160 data items. The most common errors (n = 4) were missed data items. Importantly, Claude 2's ease of use was high; it required no technical expertise or labeled training data for effective operation (i.e., zero-shot learning). Based on findings of our proof-of-concept study, leveraging LLMs has the potential to substantially enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data extraction for evidence syntheses.

Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. RESULTS: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. CONCLUSION: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.

Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software.

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper guides how to use supportive software for RRs.We strongly encourage the use of supportive software throughout RR production. Specifically, we recommend (1) using collaborative online platforms that enable working in parallel, allow for real-time project management and centralise review details; (2) using automation software to support, but not entirely replace a human reviewer and human judgement and (3) being transparent in reporting the methodology and potential risk for bias due to the use of supportive software.

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on assessing the certainty of evidence.

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper addresses considerations for rating the certainty of evidence (COE) in RRs. We recommend the full implementation of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for Cochrane RRs if time and resources allow.If time or other resources do not permit the full implementation of GRADE, the following recommendations can be considered: (1) limit rating COE to the main intervention and comparator and limit the number of outcomes to critical benefits and harms; (2) if a literature review or a Delphi approach to rate the importance of outcomes is not feasible, rely on informal judgements of knowledge users, topic experts or team members; (3) replace independent rating of the COE by two reviewers with single-reviewer rating and verification by a second reviewer and (4) if effect estimates of a well-conducted systematic review are incorporated into an RR, use existing COE grades from such a review. We advise against changing the definition of COE or the domains considered part of the GRADE approach for RRs.

Psychotherapies for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is the most common personality disorder, affecting 1.8% of the general population, 10% of psychiatric outpatients, and 15%-25% of psychiatric inpatients. Practice guidelines recommend psychotherapies as first-line treatments. However, psychotherapies commonly used for the treatment of BPD are numerous, and little is known about the comparative effectiveness of each individual psychotherapy versus treatment as usual (TAU) or other psychotherapies. To systematically assess the comparative effectiveness of commonly used psychotherapies versus TAU or versus other psychotherapies for BPD treatment. METHOD: We conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and APA PsycINFO up to July 14, 2022, and searched reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were (a) patients 13 years or older with a diagnosis of BPD, (b) treatment with commonly used psychotherapies, (c) comparison with TAU or another psychotherapy, (d) assessment of relevant BPD-related health outcomes, and (e) randomized or nonrandomized trials or controlled observational studies. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles and graded the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We found 25 psychotherapy studies meeting inclusion criteria with data on 2,545 participants. Seventeen studies compared nine psychotherapies with TAU and nine studies compared eight psychotherapies with another psychotherapy for the treatment of BPD. Overall, both TAU and included psychotherapies were effective in treating the severity and symptoms of BPD. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests that systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving is more effective than TAU for the treatment of BPD; low certainty of evidence suggests that dialectical behavior therapy, schema therapy, transference-focused psychotherapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, manual-assisted cognitive therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy are more effective than TAU for treating BPD. We were unable to draw conclusions from head-to-head comparisons of psychotherapies, which were limited to single studies with very low to low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: All commonly used psychotherapies improve BPD severity, symptoms, and functioning. Our assessment found no strong evidence suggesting that any one psychotherapy is more beneficial than another. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Full publication of preprint articles in prevention research: an analysis of publication proportions and results consistency.

There is concern that preprint articles will lead to an increase in the amount of scientifically invalid work available. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of prevention preprints published within 12 months, the consistency of the effect estimates and conclusions between preprint and published articles, and the reasons for the nonpublication of preprints. Of the 329 prevention preprints that met our eligibility criteria, almost half (48.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months of being posted. While 16.8% published preprints showed some change in the magnitude of the primary outcome effect estimate, 4.4% were classified as having a major change. The style or wording of the conclusion changed in 42.2%, the content in 3.1%. Preprints on chemoprevention, with a cross-sectional design, and with public and noncommercial funding had the highest probabilities of publication. The main reasons for the nonpublication of preprints were journal rejection or lack of time. The reliability of preprint articles for evidence-based decision-making is questionable. Less than half of the preprint articles on prevention research are published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months, and significant changes in effect sizes and/or conclusions are still possible during the peer-review process.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Evidence Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments. DATA SOURCES: The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified the data abstraction and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified. LIMITATION: Evidence for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only. CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456).

[WHO Guideline for Screening and Treatment of Cervical Pre-Cancerous Lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention (Second Edition)]. / WHO-Leitlinie zu Screening und Behandlung von präkanzerösen Zervixläsionen für die Prävention von Gebärmutterhalskrebs (2. Auflage).

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a major health concern worldwide. Cancer screenings for secondary prevention aim at reducing morbidity and mortality among women. Objective The guideline provides both an updated and an extended overview for the prevention of cervical cancer by screening and therapy. METHOD: The World Health Organization (WHO) developed this guideline in accordance with WHO standards. The respective executive summary was translated by a team of Austria's WHO Collaborating Centre. RESULTS: The updated and extended guideline contains 23 recommendations and seven good practice statements which address screening methods, test regimens, age groups, screening intervals and other topics. Target populations are adult females without known risk factors (general population) and women living with HIV. It is recommended that women from the general population undergo screening every five to ten years, starting at the age of 30. Women living with HIV are advised to get screened every three to five years, starting at the age of 25. Preferred primary screening tests are HPV DNA tests which may be supplemented with further tests in order to triage for further interventions.

Beyond statistical significance: nuanced interpretations of statistically nonsignificant results were rare in Cochrane reviews - a metaepidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the language used by systematic review authors to emphasize that statistically nonsignificant results show meaningful differences. To determine whether the magnitude of these treatment effects was distinct from nonsignificant results that authors interpreted as not different. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We screened Cochrane reviews published between 2017 and 2022 for statistically nonsignificant effect estimates that authors presented as meaningful differences. We classified interpretations qualitatively and assessed them quantitatively by calculating the areas under the curve of the portions of confidence intervals exceeding the null or a minimal important difference, indicating one intervention's greater effect. RESULTS: In 2,337 reviews, we detected 139 cases where authors emphasized meaningful differences in nonsignificant results. Authors commonly used qualifying words to express uncertainty (66.9%). Sometimes (26.6%), they made absolute claims about one intervention's greater benefit or harm without acknowledging statistical uncertainty. The areas under the curve analyses indicated that some authors may overstate the importance of nonsignificant differences, whereas others may overlook meaningful differences in nonsignificant effect estimates. CONCLUSION: Nuanced interpretations of statistically nonsignificant results were rare in Cochrane reviews. Our study highlights the need for a more nuanced approach by systematic review authors when interpreting statistically nonsignificant effect estimates.

Screening for colorectal cancer : A recommendation statement of the Austrian National Committee for Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Austria. To date, colorectal cancer screening in Austria remains opportunistic and includes colonoscopy or stool-based blood tests. The Austrian National Committee for Cancer Screening developed evidence-based recommendations for a nationwide organized colorectal cancer screening program. METHODS: The methodological framework followed the approach of the United States Preventive Services Task Force. The evidence base underlying the newly developed recommendations comprised a review of the existing published evidence and a decision analytic model tailored to the Austrian context. Using a structured process, committee members considered 1) the magnitude of the net benefit of each screening strategy, 2) the certainty of evidence, and 3) the level of acceptance of the interventions among the target population. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Austrian National Committee for Cancer Screening recommends the implementation of a nationwide organized colorectal cancer screening program for all adults aged 45-75 years. For persons 65 years or older, screening decisions should occur on an individual basis in accordance with a person's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. Specifically, the committee recommends either a 10-year screening colonoscopy or biennial fecal immunochemical tests with colonoscopy following a positive result, with both screening strategies considered equivalent. Each citizen should be able to make an informed decision about their preferred screening method. Switching between the two screening strategies should be possible. Following an unremarkable colonoscopy, screening by fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is only required after 10 years. Screening recommendations apply only to asymptomatic persons at average risk for colorectal cancer. The screening program must be pilot tested, and accompanied by a public information campaign, formative evaluation, quality assurance, and data collection.

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG). Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review (SR) methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods to ensure integrity. This paper addresses considerations around the acceleration of study selection, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment in RRs. If a RR is being undertaken, review teams should consider using one or more of the following methodological shortcuts: screen a proportion (eg, 20%) of records dually at the title/abstract level until sufficient reviewer agreement is achieved, then proceed with single-reviewer screening; use the same approach for full-text screening; conduct single-data extraction only on the most relevant data points and conduct single-RoB assessment on the most important outcomes, with a second person verifying the data extraction and RoB assessment for completeness and correctness. Where available, extract data and RoB assessments from an existing SR that meets the eligibility criteria.

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search.

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RR) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. In this paper, we address considerations for RR searches. We cover the main areas relevant to the search process: preparation and planning, information sources and search methods, search strategy development, quality assurance, reporting, and record management. Two options exist for abbreviating the search process: (1) reducing time spent on conducting searches and (2) reducing the size of the search result. Because screening search results is usually more resource-intensive than conducting the search, we suggest investing time upfront in planning and optimising the search to save time by reducing the literature screening workload. To achieve this goal, RR teams should work with an information specialist. They should select a small number of relevant information sources (eg, databases) and use search methods that are highly likely to identify relevant literature for their topic. Database search strategies should aim to optimise both precision and sensitivity, and quality assurance measures (peer review and validation of search strategies) should be applied to minimise errors.