Risk factors and preventive interventions for post Covid-19 condition: systematic review.

This systematic review examined pre-existing and clinical risk factors for post Covid-19 condition (≥12 weeks after onset), and interventions during acute and post-acute phases of illness that could potentially prevent post Covid-19 condition. The review focuses on studies collecting data during the early phases of the pandemic and prior to the emergence of variants of concern and widespread vaccination. We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, and data extraction and risk of bias assessments were verified. Meta-analysis was performed when suitable and we assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included 31 studies. We found small-to-moderate associations (e.g. adjusted odds ratios 1.5 to <2.0) between female sex and higher non-recovery, fatigue, and dyspnea (moderate certainty). Severe or critical acute-phase Covid-19 severity (versus not) has probably (moderate certainty) a large association (adjusted ratio ≥2.0) with increased cognitive impairment, a small-to-moderate association with more non-recovery, and a little-to-no association with dyspnea. There may be (low certainty) large associations between hospitalization and increased non-recovery, increased dyspnea, and reduced return to work. Other outcomes had low certainty of small-to-moderate or little-to-no association or very low certainty. Several potential preventive interventions were examined, but effects are very uncertain. Guidelines in relation to surveillance, screening, and other services such as access to sickness and disability benefits, might need to focus on females and those with previously severe Covid-19 illness. Continuous assessment of emerging evidence, especially on whether different variants and vaccination impact outcomes, will be important. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021270354.

Burden of illness in infants and young children hospitalized for respiratory syncytial virus: A rapid review.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections are common among young children and represent a significant burden to patients, their families and the Canadian health system. Here we conduct a rapid review of the burden of RSV illness in children 24 months of age or younger. Four databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 to 2018), grey literature and reference lists were reviewed for studies on the following: children with or without a risk factor, without prophylaxis and with lab-confirmed RSV infection. Of 29 studies identified, 10 provided within-study comparisons and few examined clinical conditions besides prematurity. For infants of 33-36 weeks gestation (wGA) versus term infants, there was low-to-moderate certainty evidence for an increase in RSV-hospitalizations (n=599,535 infants; RR 2.05 [95% CI 1.89-2.22]; 1.3 more per 100 [1.1-1.5 more]) and hospital length of stay (n=7,597 infants; mean difference 1.00 day [95% CI 0.88-1.12]). There was low-to-moderate certainty evidence of little-to-no difference for infants born at 29-32 versus 33-36 wGA for hospitalization (n=12,812 infants; RR 1.20 [95% CI 0.92-1.56]). There was low certainty evidence of increased mechanical ventilation for hospitalized infants born at 29-32 versus 33-35 wGA (n=212 infants; RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.94-2.65). Among infants born at 32-35 wGA, hospitalization for RSV in infancy may be associated with increased wheeze and asthma-medication use across six-year follow-up (RR range 1.3-1.7). Children with versus without Down syndrome may have increased hospital length of stay (n=7,206 children; mean difference 3.00 days, 95% CI 1.95-4.05; low certainty). Evidence for other within-study comparisons was of very low certainty. In summary, prematurity is associated with greater risk for RSV-hospitalization and longer hospital length of stay, and Down syndrome may be associated with longer hospital stay for RSV. Respiratory syncytial virus-hospitalization in infancy may be associated with greater wheeze and asthma-medication use in early childhood. Lack of a comparison group was a major limitation for many studies.

Screening for Gestational Diabetes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Gestational diabetes is associated with several poor health outcomes. Objective: To update the 2012 review on screening for gestational diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (2010 to May 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists; surveillance through June 2021. Study Selection: English-language intervention studies for screening and treatment; observational studies on screening; prospective studies on screening test accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Single-reviewer data abstraction with verification. Random-effects meta-analysis or bivariate analysis (accuracy). Main Outcomes and Measures: Pregnancy, fetal/neonatal, and long-term health outcomes; harms of screening; accuracy. Results: A total of 76 studies were included (18 randomized clinical trials [RCTs] [n = 31 241], 2 nonrandomized intervention studies [n = 190], 56 observational studies [n = 261 678]). Direct evidence on benefits of screening vs no screening was limited to 4 observational studies with inconsistent findings and methodological limitations. Screening was not significantly associated with serious or long-term harm. In 5 RCTs (n = 25 772), 1-step (International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group) vs 2-step (Carpenter and Coustan) screening was significantly associated with increased likelihood of gestational diabetes (11.5% vs 4.9%) but no improved health outcomes. At or after 24 weeks of gestation, oral glucose challenge tests with 140- and 135-mg/dL cutoffs had sensitivities of 82% and 93%, respectively, and specificities of 82% and 79%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria, and a test with a 140-mg/dL cutoff had sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 81% against the National Diabetes Group Data criteria. Fasting plasma glucose tests with cutoffs of 85 and 90 mg/dL had sensitivities of 88% and 81% and specificities of 73% and 82%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria. Based on 8 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study (n = 3982), treatment was significantly associated with decreased risk of primary cesarean deliveries (relative risk [RR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 5.3%), shoulder dystocia (RR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.23-0.77]; ARD, 1.3%), macrosomia (RR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.68]; ARD, 8.9%), large for gestational age (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.47-0.66]; ARD, 8.4%), birth injuries (odds ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.11-0.99]; ARD, 0.2%), and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53-0.99]; ARD, 2.0%). The association with reduction in preterm deliveries was not significant (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.56-1.01]). Conclusions and Relevance: Direct evidence on screening vs no screening remains limited. One- vs 2-step screening was not significantly associated with improved health outcomes. At or after 24 weeks of gestation, treatment of gestational diabetes was significantly associated with improved health outcomes.

Risk factors for severity of COVID-19: a rapid review to inform vaccine prioritisation in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid review to determine the magnitude of association between potential risk factors and severity of COVID-19, to inform vaccine prioritisation in Canada. SETTING: Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL, Epistemonikos COVID-19 in L·OVE Platform, McMaster COVID-19 Evidence Alerts and websites were searched to 15 June 2020. Eligible studies were conducted in high-income countries and used multivariate analyses. PARTICIPANTS: After piloting, screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by a single experienced reviewer. Of 3740 unique records identified, 34 were included that reported on median 596 (range 44-418 794) participants, aged 42-84 years. 19/34 (56%) were good quality. OUTCOMES: Hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, length of stay in hospital or intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, severe disease, mortality. RESULTS: Authors synthesised findings narratively and appraised the certainty of the evidence for each risk factor-outcome association. There was low or moderate certainty evidence for a large (≥2-fold) magnitude of association between hospitalisation in people with COVID-19, and: obesity class III, heart failure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dementia, age >45 years, male gender, black race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic white), homelessness and low income. Age >60 and >70 years may be associated with large increases in mechanical ventilation and severe disease, respectively. For mortality, a large magnitude of association may exist with liver disease, Bangladeshi ethnicity (vs British white), age >45 years, age >80 years (vs 65-69 years) and male gender among 20-64 years (but not older). Associations with hospitalisation and mortality may be very large (≥5-fold) for those aged ≥60 years. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age (especially >60 years) may be the most important risk factor for severe outcomes. High-quality primary research accounting for multiple confounders is needed to better understand the magnitude of associations for severity of COVID-19 with several other factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198001.

A systematic review of factors that influence the acceptability of vaccines among Canadians.

BACKGROUND: Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides guidance on the use of vaccines in Canada. To support the expansion of its mandate to include considerations for vaccine acceptability when making recommendations, the NACI Secretariat developed a matrix of factors that influence acceptability. To inform and validate the matrix, we systematically reviewed evidence for factors that influence vaccine acceptability, and for interventions aimed at improving acceptability. METHODS: On 10-11 October 2018 we searched four bibliographic databases, the Theses Canada Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers agreed on the included studies. From each study, we extracted information about the participants, intervention or exposure, comparator, and relevant outcomes. Due to heterogeneity in the reported factors and acceptability indicators we synthesized the findings narratively. We appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. For each vaccine-preventable disease we populated a matrix of factors for which there was evidence of an influence on acceptability. RESULTS: One hundred studies (>1 million participants) contributed data relevant to the public, 16 (6191 participants) to healthcare providers, and three (84 participants) to policymakers. There were 43 intervention studies (~2 million participants). Across vaccines, we identified low certainty evidence for 70 factors relevant to the general population, 56 to high-risk groups, and 30 to healthcare providers. The perceived safety and importance of the vaccine, vaccination history, and receiving a recommendation from a healthcare provider were common influential factors. We found low certainty evidence that reminders for childhood vaccines and policies or delivery models for rotavirus vaccines could improve uptake and coverage. Evidence for other interventions was of very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: The NACI vaccine acceptability matrix is useful for categorizing acceptability factors for the general public. Reminder systems may improve the uptake of childhood vaccines. Policies that make the rotavirus vaccine universally available and easily accessible may improve coverage. FUNDING: This systematic review was completed under contract to the Public Health Agency of Canada, Contract #4600001536.

Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) provide an invaluable resource for healthcare decision-making by combining large volumes of systematic review (SR) data into a single synthesis. The production of high-quality overviews hinges on the availability of practical evidence-based guidance for conduct and reporting. OBJECTIVES: Within the broad purpose of informing the development of a reporting guideline for overviews, we aimed to provide an up-to-date map of existing guidance related to the conduct of overviews, and to identify common challenges that authors face when undertaking overviews. METHODS: We updated a scoping review published in 2016 using the search methods that had produced the highest yield: ongoing reference tracking (2014 to March 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), hand-searching conference proceedings and websites, and contacting authors of published overviews. Using a qualitative meta-summary approach, one reviewer extracted, organized, and summarized the guidance and challenges presented within the included documents. A second reviewer verified the data and synthesis. RESULTS: We located 28 new guidance documents, for a total of 77 documents produced by 34 research groups. The new guidance helps to resolve some earlier identified challenges in the production of overviews. Important developments include strengthened guidance on handling primary study overlap at the study selection and analysis stages. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be hampered by inconsistent or lacking guidance. There is ongoing debate about whether, when, and how supplemental primary studies should be included in overviews. Guidance remains scant on how to extract and use appraisals of quality of the primary studies within the included SRs and how to adapt GRADE methodology to overviews. The challenges that overview authors face are often related to the above-described steps in the process where evidence-based guidance is lacking or conflicting. CONCLUSION: The rising popularity of overviews has been accompanied by a steady accumulation of new, and sometimes conflicting, guidance. While recent guidance has helped to address some of the challenges that overview authors face, areas of uncertainty remain. Practical tools supported by empirical evidence are needed to assist authors with the many methodological decision points that are encountered in the production of overviews.

The semi-automation of title and abstract screening: a retrospective exploration of ways to leverage Abstrackr's relevance predictions in systematic and rapid reviews.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the feasibility of using a machine learning tool's relevance predictions to expedite title and abstract screening. METHODS: We subjected 11 systematic reviews and six rapid reviews to four retrospective screening simulations (automated and semi-automated approaches to single-reviewer and dual independent screening) in Abstrackr, a freely-available machine learning software. We calculated the proportion missed, workload savings, and time savings compared to single-reviewer and dual independent screening by human reviewers. We performed cited reference searches to determine if missed studies would be identified via reference list scanning. RESULTS: For systematic reviews, the semi-automated, dual independent screening approach provided the best balance of time savings (median (range) 20 (3-82) hours) and reliability (median (range) proportion missed records, 1 (0-14)%). The cited references search identified 59% (n = 10/17) of the records missed. For the rapid reviews, the fully and semi-automated approaches saved time (median (range) 9 (2-18) hours and 3 (1-10) hours, respectively), but less so than for the systematic reviews. The median (range) proportion missed records for both approaches was 6 (0-22)%. CONCLUSION: Using Abstrackr to assist one of two reviewers in systematic reviews saves time with little risk of missing relevant records. Many missed records would be identified via other means.

Digital Technology Distraction for Acute Pain in Children: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Digital distraction is being integrated into pediatric pain care, but its efficacy is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of digital technology distraction on pain and distress in children experiencing acutely painful conditions or procedures. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Ei Compendex, Web of Science, and gray literature sources. STUDY SELECTION: Quantitative studies of digital technology distraction for acutely painful conditions or procedures in children. DATA EXTRACTION: Performed by 1 reviewer with verification. Outcomes were child pain and distress. RESULTS: There were 106 studies (n = 7820) that reported on digital technology distractors (eg, virtual reality and video games) used during common procedures (eg, venipuncture, dental, and burn treatments). No studies reported on painful conditions. For painful procedures, digital distraction resulted in a modest but clinically important reduction in self-reported pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.66 to -0.29; 46 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; n = 3200), observer-reported pain (SMD -0.68; 95% CI -0.91 to -0.45; 17 RCTs; n = 1199), behavioral pain (SMD -0.57; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.19; 19 RCTs; n = 1173), self-reported distress (SMD -0.49; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27; 19 RCTs; n = 1818), observer-reported distress (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.17; 10 RCTs; n = 826), and behavioral distress (SMD -0.35; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.12; 17 RCTs; n = 1264) compared with usual care. LIMITATIONS: Few studies directly compared different distractors or provided subgroup data to inform applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Digital distraction provides modest pain and distress reduction for children undergoing painful procedures; its superiority over nondigital distractors is not established. Context, preferences, and availability should inform the choice of distractor.

Performance and usability of machine learning for screening in systematic reviews: a comparative evaluation of three tools.

BACKGROUND: We explored the performance of three machine learning tools designed to facilitate title and abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs) when used to (a) eliminate irrelevant records (automated simulation) and (b) complement the work of a single reviewer (semi-automated simulation). We evaluated user experiences for each tool. METHODS: We subjected three SRs to two retrospective screening simulations. In each tool (Abstrackr, DistillerSR, RobotAnalyst), we screened a 200-record training set and downloaded the predicted relevance of the remaining records. We calculated the proportion missed and workload and time savings compared to dual independent screening. To test user experiences, eight research staff tried each tool and completed a survey. RESULTS: Using Abstrackr, DistillerSR, and RobotAnalyst, respectively, the median (range) proportion missed was 5 (0 to 28) percent, 97 (96 to 100) percent, and 70 (23 to 100) percent for the automated simulation and 1 (0 to 2) percent, 2 (0 to 7) percent, and 2 (0 to 4) percent for the semi-automated simulation. The median (range) workload savings was 90 (82 to 93) percent, 99 (98 to 99) percent, and 85 (85 to 88) percent for the automated simulation and 40 (32 to 43) percent, 49 (48 to 49) percent, and 35 (34 to 38) percent for the semi-automated simulation. The median (range) time savings was 154 (91 to 183), 185 (95 to 201), and 157 (86 to 172) hours for the automated simulation and 61 (42 to 82), 92 (46 to 100), and 64 (37 to 71) hours for the semi-automated simulation. Abstrackr identified 33-90% of records missed by a single reviewer. RobotAnalyst performed less well and DistillerSR provided no relative advantage. User experiences depended on user friendliness, qualities of the user interface, features and functions, trustworthiness, ease and speed of obtaining predictions, and practicality of the export file(s). CONCLUSIONS: The workload savings afforded in the automated simulation came with increased risk of missing relevant records. Supplementing a single reviewer's decisions with relevance predictions (semi-automated simulation) sometimes reduced the proportion missed, but performance varied by tool and SR. Designing tools based on reviewers' self-identified preferences may improve their compatibility with present workflows. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.