Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance. METHODS: A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word. RESULTS: Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR. CONCLUSION: Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.

Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges. METHODS: Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors. RESULTS: We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. CONCLUSION: We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.

The life and death of living systematic reviews: a methodological survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to describe the characteristics of living systematic reviews (LSRs) and to understand their life cycles. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a comprehensive search up to April 2021 then selected articles and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We undertook descriptive analyses and calculated delay in version update and delay since the last published version. RESULTS: We included 76 eligible LSRs with a total of 279 eligible versions. The majority of LSRs was from the clinical field (70%), was COVID-19 related (63%), and had a funding source specified (62%). The median number of versions per LSR was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-4; range 1-19). The median and IQR for the ratio of the actual period of update to the planned period of update was 1.12 (0.81; 1.71). Out of all reviews with a 'planned period of update' and at least one update (N = 19), eight LSRs (42%) had a period since last published version greater than 3 times the planned period of update. No LSR included a 'retirement notice' in their latest published version. CONCLUSION: While most LSR complied with the planned period of producing updates, a substantive proportion lagged since their last update.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through an antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), with no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches on 14 June 2021, following the original electronic searches performed in February 2016 (last major search). We electronically searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase. In addition, we handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory people with cancer (i.e., not hospital inpatients during the time of their participation in trials) These people are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised form, two review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Of 12,620 identified citations, 10 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in six of these RCTs, and a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in the remaining four RCTs (three studies used apixaban; one used rivaroxaban). The comparator was either placebo or no prophylaxis. Compared to no prophylaxis, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) probably reduce mortality at six months slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 72 fewer to 41 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduce mortality at 12 months slightly (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate-certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of a VKA compared to no prophylaxis on thrombosis; the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of VKA compared to no VKA on pulmonary embolism and symptomatic DVT (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low-certainty evidence; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 37 fewer to 16 more; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). Also, VKAs probably increase major and minor bleeding at 12 months (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate-certainty evidence for major bleeding, and RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate-certainty evidence for minor bleeding). Compared to no prophylaxis, at three to six months, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.38, RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 67 fewer to 70 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism slightly compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.98; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 1 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce symptomatic DVT slightly (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.15; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 8 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably do not increase major bleeding (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.80; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 40 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase minor bleeding (RR 3.58, 95% CI 0.55 to 23.44; RD 55 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 482 more; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), the current evidence on VKA thromboprophylaxis suggests that the harm of major bleeding might outweigh the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolism. With DOACs, the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolic events outweighs the risk of major bleeding. Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the 'What's new' section in the  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a malignant plasma cell disorder characterised by clonal plasma cells that cause end-organ damage such as renal failure, lytic bone lesions, hypercalcaemia and/or anaemia. People with multiple myeloma are treated with immunomodulatory agents including lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide. Multiple myeloma is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, which appears to be further increased in people receiving immunomodulatory agents. OBJECTIVES: (1) To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of aspirin, oral anticoagulants, or parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents who otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. (2) To maintain this review as a living systematic review by continually running the searches and incorporating newly identified studies. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search that included (1) a major electronic search (14 June 2021) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid; (2) hand-searching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of reference lists of included studies; and (4) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches, and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants such as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), anti-platelet agents such as aspirin (ASA), and parenteral anticoagulants such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, and minor bleeding. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and the risk difference (RD) with its 95% CI. We then assessed the certainty of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1015 identified citations and included 11 articles reporting four RCTs that enrolled 1042 participants. The included studies made the following comparisons: ASA versus VKA (one study); ASA versus LMWH (two studies); VKA versus LMWH (one study); and ASA versus DOAC (two studies, one of which was an abstract). ASA versus VKA One RCT compared ASA to VKA at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.24; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; RD 27 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 48 fewer to 21 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.72; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 134 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 49.43; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 220 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to VKA at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.47; RD 5 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 41 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.44; RD 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 34 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus LMWH Two RCTs compared ASA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.81; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 38 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.08; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 11 fewer to 43 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 7.71, 95% CI 0.97 to 61.44; RD 7 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 60 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 6.97, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.11; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 133 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.78; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 50 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 68 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.72; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 78 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). VKA versus LMWH One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.10; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 32 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 5.93; RD 36 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 135 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 8.96, 95% CI 0.49 to 165.42; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 164 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.17; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 30 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no major bleeding occurred in either arm. One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.90; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.63; RD 32 more per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 120 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus DOAC One RCT compared ASA to DOAC at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to DOAC on DVT, PE, and major bleeding and minor bleeding (minor bleeding: RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 79.94; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 79 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no DVT, PE, or major bleeding events occurred in either arm. These results did not change in a meta-analysis including the study published as an abstract. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the available evidence for the comparative effects of ASA, VKA, LMWH, and DOAC on all-cause mortality, DVT, PE, or bleeding was either low or very low. People with multiple myeloma considering antithrombotic agents should balance the possible benefits of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Using Parallel Streams of Evidence to Inform Guideline Development: The Case of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe an evidence synthesis approach using parallel streams of evidence that informed the development of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guideline for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We developed the evidence synthesis approach using parallel streams of evidence in multiple rounds of discussion, piloting, feedback, and revisions. A number of working groups involving ACR staff, content experts, and methodologists coordinated to develop and implement the approach. RESULTS: We used a major stream of evidence that identified evidence specific to the clinical questions being addressed in the guideline (ie, we were able to match relevant articles to specific questions). We also used additional streams that identified data that applied across multiple questions. We describe in this article the different steps of the major stream, ie, screening and tagging, matching articles to question clusters, matching articles to individual questions, data abstraction and analysis, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADEing). We then describe how we packaged the parallel streams of evidence into standardized structured tables to facilitate formulating the recommendations. These tables included information for the following factors: desirable effects, undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, valuation of outcomes, cost of interventions, and cost-effectiveness of interventions. The approach allowed us to match eligible articles for 47 of 81 clinical questions. We identified no eligible articles that addressed the remaining 34 questions. CONCLUSION: We were successful in using parallel streams of evidence to inform the development of the 2021 ACR guideline for the management of RA.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

Contextual differences considered in the Tunisian ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines on breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a common disease in Tunisia and is associated with high mortality rates. The "Instance Nationale de l'Evaluation et de l'Accréditation en Santé" (INEAS) and the Tunisian Society of Oncology decided to develop practice guidelines on the subject. While the development of de novo guidelines on breast cancer screening is a demanding process, guideline adaptation appears more appropriate and context sensitive. The objective of this paper is to describe the adaptation process of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis to the Tunisian setting in terms of the methodological process, contextual differences between the source and adoloped guideline, and changes in the recommendations. METHODS: We used the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology to prioritize the topic, select the source guideline, and prioritize the questions and the outcomes. Once the source guideline was selected-the European Breast Cancer Guidelines-the European Commission´s Joint Research Centre shared with the project team in Tunisia all relevant documents and files. In parallel, the project team searched for local studies on the disease prevalence, associated outcomes' baseline risks, patients' values and preferences, cost, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility. Then, the adoloping panel reviewed the GRADE evidence tables and the Evidence to Decision tables and discussed whether their own judgments were consistent with those from the source guideline or not. They based their judgments on the evidence on health effects, the contextual evidence, and their own experiences. RESULTS: The most relevant contextual differences between the source and adoloped guidelines were related to the perspective, scope, prioritized questions, rating of outcome importance, baseline risks, and indirectness of the evidence. The ADOLOPMENT process resulted in keeping 5 out of 6 recommendations unmodified. One recommendation addressing "screening versus no screening with ultrasound in women with high breast density on mammography screening" was modified from 'conditional against' to 'conditional for either' due to more favorable ratings by the adoloping panel in terms of equity and feasibility. CONCLUSION: This process illustrates both the feasibility of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach and the importance of consideration of contextual evidence. It also highlights the value of collaboration with the organization that developed the source guideline.

Weaponised uranium and adverse health outcomes in Iraq: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The US military first deployed depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq during the Gulf War in 1990 and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Research into the health impacts of DU has been mired in debate and controversy. Research funded by the US government has denied the health risks posed by DU to the Iraqi population, while opponents have claimed that DU is responsible for increased rates of birth defects and cancers in Iraq. Others assert that the public health impacts of DU weapons remain uncertain. This systematic review identified, appraised and synthesised all human observational studies assessing adverse health outcomes associated with DU exposure among the Iraqi population. To our knowledge, no systematic review has been conducted on the topic previously. METHODS: We searched 11 electronic databases for human observational studies published between 1990 and 2020 that measured association between exposure to weaponised uranium and health outcomes (including cancer, birth defects, immune system function and mortality) among the Iraqi population. We assessed risk of bias using the Navigation Guide's risk of bias tool and rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach (PROSPERO: CRD42018108225). RESULTS: Our searches identified 2601 records, of which 28 met our inclusion criteria. We identified five additional eligible reports from other sources. Two articles reported the results of multiple relevant studies; our final set included 33 articles reporting on 36 eligible studies. Most studies (n=30, 83%) reported a positive association between uranium exposure and adverse health outcomes. However, we found that the reviewed body of evidence suffers from a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests possible associations between exposure to depleted uranium and adverse health outcomes among the Iraqi population. More primary research and the release of missing data are needed to design meaningful health and policy interventions in Iraq.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal.

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to July 2020. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 108 living publications relating to 32 LSRs. Of the 108 publications, 7% were protocols, 24% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 62% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 7% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%);  all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flowthrough the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol.

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on an ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. A few guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but the methodology described is either not up-to date or not suitable for LSRs and misses additional LSR-specific considerations. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically collate methodological literature and guidance on how to conduct, report, publish and appraise the quality of LSRs. The scoping review will allow the mapping of the existing evidence on the topic to support LSRs authors seeking guidance and identify related gaps.  Methods: To achieve our objectives, we will conduct a scoping review to survey and evaluate existing evidence, using the standard scoping review methodology. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane using the OVID interface. The search strategy was developed by a researcher experienced in developing literature search strategies with the help of an information specialist. As for searching grey literature, we will seek existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses using the Lens.org website. Two review authors will extract and catalogue the study data on LSR methodological aspects into a standardized and pilot-tested data extraction form. The main categories will reflect proposed methods for (i) conducting LSRs, (ii) reporting of LSRs, (iii) publishing and (iv) appraising the quality of LSRs. Data synthesis and conclusion: By collecting these data from methodological surveys and papers, as well as existing guidance documents and handbooks on LSRs, we might identify specific issues and components lacking within current LSR methodology. Thus, the systematically obtained findings of the scoping review could be used as basis for the revision of existing methods tools on LSR, for instance a PRISMA statement extension for LSRs.

Evaluating prophylactic heparin in ambulatory patients with solid tumours: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Study-level meta-analyses provide high-certainty evidence that heparin reduces the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer; however, whether the benefits and harms associated with heparin differ by cancer type is unclear. This individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials examines the effect of heparin on survival, venous thromboembolism, and bleeding in patients with cancer in general and by type. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials comparing parenteral anticoagulants with placebo or standard care in ambulatory patients with solid tumours and no indication for anticoagulation published from the inception of each database to January 14, 2017, and updated it on May 14, 2020, without language restrictions. We calculated the effect of parenteral anticoagulant administration on all-cause mortality, venous thromboembolism occurrence, and bleeding related outcomes through multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect, adjusting for age, cancer type, and metastatic status. Interaction terms were tested to investigate effects in predefined subgroups. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42013003526. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 14 of 20 eligible randomised controlled trials (8278 [79%] of 10 431 participants; 4139 included in the low-molecular-weight heparin group and 4139 in the control group). Meta-analysis showed an adjusted relative risk (RR) of mortality at 1 year of 0·99 (95% CI 0·93-1·06) and a hazard ratio of 1·01 (95% CI 0·96-1·07). The number of patients with venous thromboembolic events was 158 (4·0%) of 3958 with available data in the low-molecular-weight heparin group compared with 279 (7·1%) of 3957 in the control group. Major bleeding events occurred in 71 (1·7%) of 4139 patients in the control population and 88 (2·1%) in the low-molecular-weight heparin group, and minor bleeding events in 478 (12·1%) of 3945 patients with available data in the control group and 652 (16·6%) of 3937 patients in the low-molecular-weight heparin group. The adjusted RR was 0·58 (95% CI 0·47-0·71) for venous thromboembolism, 1·27 (0·92-1·74) for major bleeding, and 1·34 (1·19-1·51) for minor bleeding. Prespecified subgroup analysis of venous thromboembolism occurrence by cancer type identified the most certain benefit from heparin treatment in patients with lung cancer (RR 0·59 [95% CI 0·42-0·81]), which dominated the overall reduction in venous thromboembolism. Certainty of the evidence for the outcomes ranged from moderate to high. INTERPRETATION: Low-molecular-weight heparin reduces risk of venous thromboembolism without increasing risk of major bleeding compared with placebo or standard care in patients with solid tumours, but it does not improve survival. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Potential impact of missing outcome data on treatment effects in systematic reviews: imputation study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of bias associated with missing outcome data in systematic reviews. DESIGN: Imputation study. SETTING: Systematic reviews. POPULATION: 100 systematic reviews that included a group level meta-analysis with a statistically significant effect on a patient important dichotomous efficacy outcome. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median percentage change in the relative effect estimate when applying each of the following assumption (four commonly discussed but implausible assumptions (best case scenario, none had the event, all had the event, and worst case scenario) and four plausible assumptions for missing data based on the informative missingness odds ratio (IMOR) approach (IMOR 1.5 (least stringent), IMOR 2, IMOR 3, IMOR 5 (most stringent)); percentage of meta-analyses that crossed the threshold of the null effect for each method; and percentage of meta-analyses that qualitatively changed direction of effect for each method. Sensitivity analyses based on the eight different methods of handling missing data were conducted. RESULTS: 100 systematic reviews with 653 randomised controlled trials were included. When applying the implausible but commonly discussed assumptions, the median change in the relative effect estimate varied from 0% to 30.4%. The percentage of meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 1% (best case scenario) to 60% (worst case scenario), and 26% changed direction with the worst case scenario. When applying the plausible assumptions, the median percentage change in relative effect estimate varied from 1.4% to 7.0%. The percentage of meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 6% (IMOR 1.5) to 22% (IMOR 5) of meta-analyses, and 2% changed direction with the most stringent (IMOR 5). CONCLUSION: Even when applying plausible assumptions to the outcomes of participants with definite missing data, the average change in pooled relative effect estimate is substantive, and almost a quarter (22%) of meta-analyses crossed the threshold of the null effect. Systematic review authors should present the potential impact of missing outcome data on their effect estimates and use this to inform their overall GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) ratings of risk of bias and their interpretation of the results.

Prevention of health care associated venous thromboembolism through implementing VTE prevention clinical practice guidelines in hospitalized medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Numerous VTE prevention clinical practice guidelines are available but not consistently implemented. This systematic review explored effectiveness of implementing VTE prevention clinical practice guidelines on VTE risk assessment and appropriateness of prophylaxis in hospitalized adult medical patients and identified the interventions followed to improve the adherence to these guidelines. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials, or pre/post evaluation studies up to January 2019. Studies identified were screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized form. Risk of bias was assessed using MINORS and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of the 3537 records identified, 36 were eligible; eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and four for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of the studies assessing the impact of implementing VTE clinical practice guidelines favored appropriate prophylaxis (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.97, 552 patients). Potential risk of bias was assessed to be low for 28% of the studies. However, using GRADE, the certainty of the evidence of all outcomes was rated very low quality. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of randomized controlled trials in this area reduces the quality of the evidence available. The evidence from before-after studies suggests that the implementation of VTE clinical practice guidelines may increase the practice of VTE risk assessment and appropriate prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018085506.

Meta-Analyses Proved Inconsistent in How Missing Data Were Handled Across Their Included Primary Trials: A Methodological Survey.

BACKGROUND: How systematic review authors address missing data among eligible primary studies remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether systematic review authors are consistent in the way they handle missing data, both across trials included in the same meta-analysis, and with their reported methods. METHODS: We first identified 100 eligible systematic reviews that included a statistically significant meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome. Then, we successfully retrieved 638 of the 653 trials included in these systematic reviews' meta-analyses. From each trial report, we extracted statistical data used in the analysis of the outcome of interest to compare with the data used in the meta-analysis. First, we used these comparisons to classify the "analytical method actually used" for handling missing data by the systematic review authors for each included trial. Second, we assessed whether systematic reviews explicitly reported their analytical method of handling missing data. Third, we calculated the proportion of systematic reviews that were consistent in their "analytical method actually used" across trials included in the same meta-analysis. Fourth, among systematic reviews that were consistent in the "analytical method actually used" across trials and explicitly reported on a method for handling missing data, we assessed whether the "analytical method actually used" and the reported methods were consistent. RESULTS: We were unable to determine the "analytical method reviews actually used" for handling missing outcome data among 397 trials. Among the remaining 241, systematic review authors most commonly conducted "complete case analysis" (n=128, 53%) or assumed "none of the participants with missing data had the event of interest" (n=58, 24%). Only eight of 100 systematic reviews were consistent in their approach to handling missing data across included trials, but none of these reported methods for handling missing data. Among seven reviews that did explicitly report their analytical method of handling missing data, only one was consistent in their approach across included trials (using complete case analysis), and their approach was inconsistent with their reported methods (assumed all participants with missing data had the event). CONCLUSION: The majority of systematic review authors were inconsistent in their approach towards reporting and handling missing outcome data across eligible primary trials, and most did not explicitly report their methods to handle missing data. Systematic review authors should clearly identify missing outcome data among their eligible trials, specify an approach for handling missing data in their analyses, and apply their approach consistently across all primary trials.

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oncology guidelines suggest using the Khorana score to select ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy for primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, but its performance in different cancers remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the Khorana score in assessing 6-month VTE risk, and the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) among high-risk Khorana score patients. METHODS: This individual patient data meta-analysis evaluated (ultra)-LMWH in patients with solid cancer using data from seven randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 3293 patients from the control groups with an available Khorana score had lung (n = 1913; 58%), colorectal (n = 452; 14%), pancreatic (n = 264; 8%), gastric (n = 201; 6%), ovarian (n = 184; 56%), breast (n = 164; 5%), brain (n = 84; 3%), or bladder cancer (n = 31; 1%). The 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate-risk patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.72-1.7) than in the group with other cancer types (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.8-5.6; Pinteraction  = .002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared with controls (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58), without increasing the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.59-2.1). CONCLUSION: The Khorana score was unable to stratify patients with lung cancer based on their VTE risk. Among those with other cancer types, a high-risk score was associated with a three-fold increased risk of VTE compared with a low-to-intermediate risk score. Thromboprophylaxis was effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score.