Use of electromyographic biofeedback in rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery is essential to regain functionality and return to previous activity level. Electromyographic biofeedback may be an effective intervention for rehabilitation of patients following ACL surgery. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the available evidence on the effect of electromyographic biofeedback in the treatment of quadriceps strength following ACL surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Epistemonikos were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials with patients undergoing ACL reconstruction surgery comparing biofeedback with a standard rehabilitation control group. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Two authors selected articles and performed data extraction. The analysed outcomes were strength, function, pain, knee extension and balance. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results were combined through random-effects meta-analysis, reporting mean differences. RESULTS: Eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and four articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The interventions lasted between 4 and 12 weeks. Three studies evaluated the effect of biofeedback on quadriceps strength; of these, two studies showed a significant difference in favour of the biofeedback group. In addition, biofeedback was found to improve knee extension [standardized mean difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.74 to -0.86] and balance (one study). There was no significant difference in Lysholm score (mean difference -6.21, 95% CI -17.51 to 5.08; I2 =59%) or pain between the biofeedback group and the control group. CONCLUSION: Electromyographic biofeedback in knee rehabilitation could be useful following ACL reconstruction surgery. KEY MESSAGES: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42020193768).

Approaching the body of evidence: Key concepts of Overviews. / Abordando el cuerpo de evidencia: conceptos fundamentales de los overviews.

The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.

El aumento de la producción de investigación primaria y de las revisiones de la literatura durante las últimas décadas ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de un nuevo diseño metodológico para sintetizar la evidencia: los overviews. Un overview es un diseño de síntesis de evidencia que toma como unidad de análisis a las revisiones sistemáticas, con el objetivo de extraer y analizar los resultados para una pregunta de interés nueva o más amplia, ayudando así a mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones informadas. El objetivo de este artículo es introducir al lector a este tipo de resúmenes de evidencia, destacando las diferencias con los otros tipos de síntesis de evidencia, los aspectos metodológicos particulares de los overviews, y los desafíos pendientes. Este artículo es el duodécimo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica.

Abordando el cuerpo de evidencia: conceptos fundamentales de los overviews / Approaching the body of evidence: Key concepts of Overviews

El aumento de la producción de investigación primaria y de las revisiones de la literatura durante las últimas décadas ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de un nuevo diseño metodológico para sintetizar la evidencia: los overviews. Un overview es un diseño de síntesis de evidencia que toma como unidad de análisis a las revisiones sistemáticas, con el objetivo de extraer y analizar los resultados para una pregunta de interés nueva o más amplia, ayudando así a mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones informadas. El objetivo de este artículo es introducir al lector a este tipo de resúmenes de evidencia, destacando las diferencias con los otros tipos de síntesis de evidencia, los aspectos metodológicos particulares de los overviews, y los desafíos pendientes. Este artículo es el duodécimo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica.

The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.

Hallazgos histopatológicos pulmonares asociados a COVID-19. Una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis / Histopathological findings in lungs of COVID-19 infected subjects. A systematic review and meta-analysis

El COVID-19 es una nueva enfermedad que requería resultados prontos provenientes de la investigación. Un abordaje para la comprensión de su fisiopatología es conocer el daño a nivel histopatológico que genera en los pulmones de los afectados. Objetivo. Proveer un resumen riguroso de la evidencia disponible sobre los hallazgos histopatológicos pulmonares en pacientes con COVID-19. Se desarrolló una revisión sistemática con metaanálisis de proporciones. Se incluyeron estudios primarios de cualquier diseño que tuvieran datos primarios de hallazgos histopatológicos de pulmones en pacientes COVID-19. Se excluyeron revisiones y guías. Las fuentes de información fueron el repositorio centralizado Living OVerview of Evidence, PubMed/Medline, LitCovid, la base de datos COVID-19 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y medRxiv hasta el 3 de abril 2021. La evaluación del riesgo de sesgos se realizó utilizando las herramientas del Instituto Joanna Briggs para series de casos y reportes de casos. Se extrajo cada dato de hallazgo pulmonar histopatológico. Se calcularon las frecuencias encontradas y los datos de los hallazgos más frecuentes fueron resumidas en metaanálisis usando el método de efectos aleatorios de Der Simmonian-Liard. Se midió la heterogeneidad. Los criterios de inclusión fueron cumplidos por 69 artículos sumando 594 sujetos. Presentaron bajo riesgo de sesgos 35 artículos. El metaanálisis de proporciones mostro daño alveolar difuso en 0,62 (IC 95 % 0,51-0,72), I2 59 % (p < 0,01), en su fase temprana (85,14 %). Conclusión. El daño alveolar difuso temprano fue el hallazgo histopatológico más frecuente en muestras pulmonares de pacientes con COVID-19

COVID-19 is a new disease that required prompt results from research. An approach to understanding its pathophysiology is to know the damage at the histopathological level that it generates in the lungs of those affected. Aim. To provide a rigorous summary of the available evidence on pulmonary histopathological findings in patients with COVID-19. A systematic review with meta-analysis of proportions was developed. Primary studies of any design that had primary data on lung histopathology findings in COVID-19 patients were included. Reviews and guidelines were excluded. The sources of information were the Living OVerview of Evidence centralized repository, PubMed/Medline, LitCovid, the World Health Organization COVID-19 database, and medRxiv up to April 3, 2021. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools for case series and case reports. Each histopathological pulmonary finding data was extracted. The frequencies found were calculated and the data of the most frequent findings were summarized in meta-analyses using the Der Simmonian-Liard random effects method. Heterogeneity was measured. The inclusion criteria were met by 69 articles totaling 594 subjects. Thirty-five articles presented low risk of bias. The meta-analysis of proportions showed diffuse alveolar damage in 0.62 (95% CI 0.51-0.72), I2 59% (p < 0.01), in its early phase (85.14%). Conclution. Early diffuse alveolar damage was the most frequent histopathological finding in lung samples from patients with COVID-19

Introduction to network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis. / Introducción a los metanálisis en red para la síntesis de evidencia.

This article belongs to a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. The goal is to present basics concepts concerning the systematics reviews of multiple treatments comparisons with network meta-analysis. For clinical ques-tions with several therapeutic alternatives to be compared, the central question is how to classify or rank their effectiveness (benefit and harm) to choose the best option. The network meta-analysis aims to answer questions related to the effectiveness and safety of comparing multiple treatments by the simultaneous analysis of results raised from direct and indirect comparisons. The network geometry is the general graphical representation of the network meta-analysis and allows to understand and assess the strength of comparisons. The network meta-analysis should check several assumptions to be valid, especially the transitivity assumption, which allows assuming that there are no systematic differences among the included comparisons, except their compared interventions. Thus, it is possible to know the relative therapeutic effectiveness of each pair of interventions included in the network meta-analysis and their ranking in terms of categorization. It has been proposed to use a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach considering the distinctive features of network meta-analysis to assess the certainty of the evidence for each comparison and the ranking of interventions.

Este artículo forma parte de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar conceptos básicos respecto de las revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones múltiples con metanálisis en red. Para las preguntas clínicas en las que hay muchas alternativas terapéuticas que compiten (o se comparan) entre sí. La pregunta central es cómo clasificar u ordenar jerárquicamente su efecto (beneficio y/o daño) para escoger la mejor opción. Los metanálisis en red buscan responder a preguntas relacionadas con la efectividad o seguridad de múltiples tratamientos comparados entre sí, mediante el análisis simultáneo de resultados surgidos tanto de comparaciones directas como de comparaciones indirectas. La geometría de la red (network geometry) es la representación gráfica general de los metanálisis en red y permite comprender e incluso evaluar la fuerza de las comparaciones. Para que un metanálisis de comparaciones múltiples sea válido debe cumplir una serie de supuestos, destacándose el supuesto de transitividad que permite asumir que no hay diferencias sistemáticas entre las comparaciones disponibles, a excepción de las intervenciones comparadas. Así, es posible conocer la efectividad terapéutica relativa entre cualquier par de intervenciones del metanálisis en red y el orden de las intervenciones en términos de su categorización. Se ha propuesto utilizar el modelo Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) modificado en cuanto a las particularidades de los metanálisis en red para valorar la certeza de la evidencia, tanto para cada comparación como para la jerarquización de intervenciones.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol. / Rehabilitación pulmonar en COVID-19: protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva.

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of pulmonary rehabilitation in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: This is the protocol of a living systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We will conduct searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and other resources relevant to COVID-19. No date or language restrictions will be applied. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS: We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions-versus sham or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

OBJETIVO: Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de la rehabilitación pulmonar en el tratamiento de los pacientes con COVID-19. DISEÑO: Es el protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva. FUENTE DE DATOS: Realizaremos búsquedas en la plataforma L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) para COVID-19, un sistema que mapea los componentes de las preguntas de investigación (PICO) en un repositorio mantenido a través de búsquedas regulares en bases de datos electrónicas, servidores de pre-impresión, registros de ensayos y otros recursos relevantes para COVID-19. No se aplicarán restricciones de fecha ni de idioma. CRITERIOS DE ELEGIBILIDAD PARA LA SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Y MÉTODOS: Se adaptó un protocolo común ya publicado para revisiones sistemáticas paralelas múltiples a las especificidades de la pregunta. Se incluirán ensayos aleatorios que evalúen el efecto de la rehabilitación pulmonar como monoterapia o en combinación con otras intervenciones frente a un tratamiento simulado o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Dos revisores examinarán de forma independiente cada estudio para determinar su elegibilidad, extraerán los datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo. Se agruparán los resultados mediante un metaanálisis y se aplicará el sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) para evaluar la certeza de las pruebas para cada resultado. ÉTICA Y DIFUSIÓN: No se considera necesaria la aprobación ética. Los resultados de esta revisión se difundirán ampliamente a través de publicaciones revisadas por pares, redes sociales y medios de comunicación tradicionales.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for COVID-19: a living systematic review protocol

Objective This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of pulmonary rehabilitation in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Design This is the protocol of a living systematic review. Data sources We will conduct searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and other resources relevant to COVID-19. No date or language restrictions will be applied. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions-versus sham or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

Introducción a los metanálisis en red para la síntesis de evidencia / Introduction to network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis

Este artículo forma parte de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar conceptos básicos respecto de las revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones múltiples con metanálisis en red. Para las preguntas clínicas en las que hay muchas alternativas terapéuticas que compiten (o se comparan) entre sí. La pregunta central es cómo clasificar u ordenar jerárquicamente su efecto (beneficio y/o daño) para escoger la mejor opción. Los metanálisis en red buscan responder a preguntas relacionadas con la efectividad o seguridad de múltiples tratamientos comparados entre sí, mediante el análisis simultáneo de resultados surgidos tanto de comparaciones directas como de comparaciones indirectas. La geometría de la red (network geometry) es la representación gráfica general de los metanálisis en red y permite comprender e incluso evaluar la fuerza de las comparaciones. Para que un metanálisis de comparaciones múltiples sea válido debe cumplir una serie de supuestos, destacándose el supuesto de transitividad que permite asumir que no hay diferencias sistemáticas entre las comparaciones disponibles, a excepción de las intervenciones comparadas. Así, es posible conocer la efectividad terapéutica relativa entre cualquier par de intervenciones del metanálisis en red y el orden de las intervenciones en términos de su categorización. Se ha propuesto utilizar el modelo Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) modificado en cuanto a las particularidades de los metanálisis en red para valorar la certeza de la evidencia, tanto para cada comparación como para la jerarquización de intervenciones.

This article belongs to a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. The goal is to present basics concepts concerning the systematics reviews of multiple treatments comparisons with network meta-analysis. For clinical ques-tions with several therapeutic alternatives to be compared, the central question is how to classify or rank their effectiveness (benefit and harm) to choose the best option. The network meta-analysis aims to answer questions related to the effectiveness and safety of comparing multiple treatments by the simultaneous analysis of results raised from direct and indirect comparisons. The network geometry is the general graphical representation of the network meta-analysis and allows to understand and assess the strength of comparisons. The network meta-analysis should check several assumptions to be valid, especially the transitivity assumption, which allows assuming that there are no systematic differences among the included comparisons, except their compared interventions. Thus, it is possible to know the relative therapeutic effectiveness of each pair of interventions included in the network meta-analysis and their ranking in terms of categorization. It has been proposed to use a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach considering the distinctive features of network meta-analysis to assess the certainty of the evidence for each comparison and the ranking of interventions.

Offloader knee braces for knee osteoarthritis. / Uso de órtesis de rodilla con refuerzo en descarga en artrosis de rodilla.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis is a relevant health problem given its high prevalence and associated disability. Within the non-pharmacological management alternatives, the use of offloader knee braces has been proposed, however, there is no consensus in the literature regarding its indication. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified 14 systematic reviews including nine studies overall, all of which were randomized trials. We conclude that the use of offloader knee braces in patients with knee osteoarthritis probably increases physical function through walking distance. However, its use may make little or no difference to physical function measured with the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee score, it may slightly worsen the quality of life and increase adverse events, but the certainty of the evidence is low. In addition, we are uncertain whether the use of offloader knee braces reduces pain as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La artrosis de rodilla es una enfermedad degenerativa que constituye un problema de salud relevante dada su alta prevalencia y discapacidad asociada. Dentro de las alternativas de manejo no farmacológico se ha planteado el uso de órtesis de rodilla, sin embargo no existe consenso en la literatura respecto a su utilidad. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis, preparamos tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos 14 revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron nueve estudios primarios, de los cuales, todos corresponden a ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que el uso de órtesis de rodilla con refuerzo en descarga en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla probablemente aumenta la funcionalidad medida a través de la distancia caminada. Sin embargo, podría resultar en poca o nula diferencia sobre la funcionalidad evaluada con Hospital for Special Surgery Knee score, podría empeorar levemente la calidad de vida y aumentar los efectos adversos, pero la certeza de la evidencia es baja. Además, no es posible establecer con claridad si el uso de órtesis de rodilla disminuye el dolor dado que la certeza de la evidencia fue evaluada como muy baja.

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for COVID-19: A living systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence), which retrieves articles from multiple sources such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, among other pre-print and protocols repositories. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) was adapted to expand the range of evidence and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place on a daily search basis. The search covered a period of time up to July 31, 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel living systematic reviews to this question's specificities. We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of either suspension or indication of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers as monotherapy, or in combination versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We pooled the results using meta-analysis and applied the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We will resubmit results every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: We screened 772 records, but none was considered for eligibility. We identified 55 ongoing studies, including 41 randomized trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers for patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a randomized clinical trial meeting our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence for supporting the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies would provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers in the near future. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182495. PROTOCOL PREPRINT DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/vp9nj.

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el rol de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina (iECA) y los bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II (ARA-II) en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. FUENTES DE DATOS: Realizamos búsquedas en PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) que recupera artículos de múltiples fuentes como PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, entre otros repositorios de preprints y protocolos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) se adaptó para ampliar el rango de información que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar toda la evidencia en torno a COVID-19 en un solo lugar, en una base de búsqueda diaria. La búsqueda cubrió el período hasta el 31 de julio de 2020. CRITERIOS DE ELEGIBILIDAD PARA LA SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Y MÉTODOS: Adaptamos un protocolo común ya publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas vivas paralelas a las especificidades de esta pregunta. Se incluyeron ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaban el efecto de la suspensión o la indicación de inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina o bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina II, como monoterapia o en combinación, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento, en pacientes con COVID-19. Se buscaron ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaran el efecto de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina/bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Los resultados se agruparon mediante un metanálisis y se aplicó GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado. Cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o hayan actualizaciones sustanciales, volveremos a enviar un reporte. RESULTADOS: Analizamos 772 artículos, pero ninguno cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. Identificamos 55 estudios en curso, incluidos 41 ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaban inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina/bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II para pacientes con COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: No encontramos ningún ensayo clínico aleatorizado que cumpliera con nuestros criterios de inclusión y, por lo tanto, no hay pruebas que respalden el papel de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina y los bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina II en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. Identificamos un número considerable de estudios en curso que podría proporcionar evidencia valiosa para informar a los investigadores y a los responsables de la toma de decisiones en un futuro próximo.

Use of gloves for the prevention of COVID-19 in healthy population: A living systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy of using gloves by the general population to prevent COVID-19 is unknown. We aim to determine the efficacy of routine glove use by the general healthy population in preventing COVID-19. This is the protocol of a living systematic review. METHODS: We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves in healthy population to prevent COVID-19 disease. Randomized trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves during outbreaks caused by MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and nonrandomized studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomized trials is found.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.

Rapid reviews: definitions and uses. / Revisiones rápidas: definiciones y usos.

This article is the first in a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to present rapid reviews, compare them with systematic reviews, and mention how they can be used. Rapid reviews use a methodology like systematic reviews, but through shortcuts applied, they can attain answers in less than six months and with fewer resources. Decision-makers use them in both America and Europe. There is no consensus on which shortcuts have the least impact on the reliability of conclusions, so rapid reviews are heterogeneous. Users of rapid reviews should identify these shortcuts in the methodology and be cautious when interpreting the conclusions, although they generally reach answers concordant with those obtained through a formal systematic review. The principal value of rapid reviews is to respond to health decision-makers needs when the context demands answers in limited time frames.

Este artículo es el primero de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de esta revisión es presentar las revisiones rápidas, compararlas con las revisiones sistemáticas y mencionar su uso actual. Las revisiones rápidas utilizan una metodología similar a las revisiones sistemáticas, pero mediante atajos utilizados en su desarrollo; permiten alcanzar respuestas en menos de seis meses y con menos recursos, por lo que son utilizadas por tomadores de decisiones tanto en América como Europa. No existe consenso sobre cuáles atajos tienen menor impacto en la confiabilidad de las conclusiones, por lo que las revisiones rápidas son heterogéneas entre sí. Los consumidores deben identificar estos atajos en la metodología y ser precavidos en la interpretación de las conclusiones, aunque generalmente alcanzan respuestas concordantes con las obtenidas mediante una revisión sistemática tradicional. Su principal atractivo es ajustarse a las necesidades de los tomadores de decisiones en salud, cuando el contexto exige respuestas en plazos de tiempo acotados.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes related to COVID-19 and pregnancy: An overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pregnancy has rapidly increased since December 2019, making it difficult to make rigorous evidence-based decisions. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence on prognosis of COVID-19 in pregnant women. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform for COVID-19, which continually retrieves studies from 46 data sources (including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, other electronic databases, clinical trials registries, and preprint repositories, among other sources relevant to COVID-19), mapping them into PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) questions. The search covered the period from the inception date of each database to 13 September 2020. We included systematic reviews assessing outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 and/or their newborns. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, assessed full texts to select the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias of each included systematic review. We measured the overlap of primary studies included among the selected systematic reviews by building a matrix of evidence, calculating the corrected covered area, and assessing the level of overlap for every pair of systematic reviews. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1132 references. 52 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria and were included in this overview. Only one review had a low risk of bias, three had an unclear risk of bias, and 48 had a high risk of bias. Most of the included reviews were highly overlapped among each other. In the included reviews, rates of maternal death varied from 0% to 11.1%, admission to intensive care from 2.1% to 28.5%, preterm deliveries before 37 weeks from 14.3% to 61.2%, and cesarean delivery from 48.3% to 100%. Regarding neonatal outcomes, neonatal death varied from 0% to 11.7% and the estimated infection status of the newborn varied between 0% and 11.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Only one of 52 systematic reviews had a low risk of bias. Results were heterogeneous and the overlap of primary studies was frequently very high between pairs of systematic reviews. High-quality evidence syntheses of comparative studies are needed to guide future clinical decisions.

Sexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus and its role in the spread of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of the literature on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the sexual fluids of patients with COVID-19 and to observe its possible sexual transmission in a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated manner. DATA SOURCES: We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the sexual transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Randomized trials evaluating the sexual transmission of other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 will be searched if no direct evidence from randomized trials is found or if the direct evidence provides a low to a very low level of certainty for critical outcomes. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit the review if the conclusions change or if there are substantial updates. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: (CRD42020189368).

OBJETIVO: Proporcionar una revisión de la literatura sobre la presencia de SARS-CoV-2 en los fluidos sexuales de pacientes con COVID-19 y su posible transmisión sexual de manera oportuna, rigurosa y continuamente actualizada. FUENTES DE DATOS: Realizaremos búsquedas en PubMed / Medline, Embase, Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en un repositorio centralizado en L · OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L · OVE es una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO a la evidencia de la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L · OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar todas las pruebas de COVID-19 en un solo lugar. La búsqueda cubrirá el período hasta el día anterior al envío a una revista. CRITERIOS DE ELEGIBILIDAD PARA LA SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Y MÉTODOS: Adaptamos un protocolo común ya publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas paralelas a las especificidades de esta pregunta. Incluiremos ensayos aleatorios que evalúen la transmisión sexual del virus SARS-CoV-2. Se buscarán ensayos aleatorizados que evalúen la transmisión sexual de otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV, y estudios no aleatorizados en COVID-19 en caso de que no se encuentre evidencia directa de ensayos aleatorizados, o si la evidencia directa proporciona una - o certeza muy baja para resultados críticos. Dos revisores evaluarán de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extraerán datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo. Realizaremos metanálisis de efectos aleatorios y utilizaremos GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado. Una versión viva basada en la web de esta revisión estará disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Lo volveremos a enviar si las conclusiones cambian o hay actualizaciones sustanciales. REGISTRO PROSPERO: (CRD42020189368).

Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews allow health decisions to be informed by the best available research evidence. However, their number is proliferating quickly, and many skills are required to identify all the relevant reviews for a specific question. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We screen 10 bibliographic databases on a daily or weekly basis, to identify systematic reviews relevant for health decision-making. Using a machine-based approach developed for this project we select reviews, which are then validated by a network of more than 1000 collaborators. After screening over 1,400,000 records we have identified more than 300,000 systematic reviews, which are now stored in a single place and accessible through an easy-to-use search engine. This makes Epistemonikos the largest database of its kind. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic approach, recruiting a broad network of collaborators and implementing automated methods, we developed a one-stop shop for systematic reviews relevant for health decision making.

Transmisión sexual del virus SARS-CoV-2 y su rol en la propagación de COVID-19: protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva / Sexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus and its role in the spread of COVID-19: a living systematic review protocol

Objetivo Proporcionar una revisión de la literatura sobre la presencia de SARS-CoV-2 en los fluidos sexuales de pacientes con COVID-19 y su posible transmisión sexual de manera oportuna, rigurosa y continuamente actualizada. Fuentes de datos Realizaremos búsquedas en PubMed / Medline, Embase, Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en un repositorio centralizado en L · OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L · OVE es una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO a la evidencia de la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L · OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar todas las pruebas de COVID-19 en un solo lugar. La búsqueda cubrirá el período hasta el día anterior al envío a una revista. Criterios de elegibilidad para la selección de estudios y métodos Adaptamos un protocolo común ya publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas paralelas a las especificidades de esta pregunta. Incluiremos ensayos aleatorios que evalúen la transmisión sexual del virus SARS-CoV-2. Se buscarán ensayos aleatorizados que evalúen la transmisión sexual de otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV, y estudios no aleatorizados en COVID-19 en caso de que no se encuentre evidencia directa de ensayos aleatorizados, o si la evidencia directa proporciona una - o certeza muy baja para resultados críticos. Dos revisores evaluarán de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extraerán datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo. Realizaremos metanálisis de efectos aleatorios y utilizaremos GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado. Una versión viva basada en la web de esta revisión estará disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Lo volveremos a enviar si las conclusiones cambian o hay actualizaciones sustanciales Registro PROSPERO (CRD42020189368).

Vitamin C for COVID-19: A living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of vitamin C in treating patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it comprises and has been customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until April 29, 2020 (one day before submission). STUDY SELECTION AND METHODS: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect, in patients with COVID-19, of vitamin C versus placebo or no treatment. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we will resubmit it to the journal whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: We screened 95 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 20 ongoing studies, including 13 randomized trials evaluating vitamin C in COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020181216.

Vitamin C for COVID-19: a living systematic review / Vitamina C para COVID-19: una revisión sistemática viva

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of vitamin C in treating patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it comprises and has been customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until April 29, 2020 (one day before submission). STUDY SELECTION AND METHODS: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect, in patients with COVID-19, of vitamin C versus placebo or no treatment. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we will resubmit it to the journal whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: We screened 95 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 20 ongoing studies, including 13 randomized trials evaluating vitamin C in COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon.

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de la vitamina C en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. FUENTES DE DATOS: Realizamos búsquedas en PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en un repositorio centralizado en L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar toda la evidencia de COVID-19 en un solo lugar. Todas las búsquedas abarcaron el período hasta el 29 de abril de 2020 (un día antes de su envío). SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Y MÉTODOS: Adaptamos un protocolo común publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas paralelas. Se buscaron ensayos aleatorios que evaluaran el efecto de la vitamina C versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Anticipando la falta de ensayos aleatorios que aborden directamente esta cuestión, también buscamos ensayos que evaluaran MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV, y estudios no aleatorios en COVID-19. Dos revisores seleccionaron de forma independiente cada estudio para determinar su elegibilidad. Una versión viva y basada en la web de esta revisión estará abiertamente disponible durante la pandemia de COVID-19, y se volverá a enviar a publicación cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se examinaron 95 registros, pero ningún estudio se consideró elegible. Se identificaron 20 estudios en curso, incluidos 13 ensayos aleatorios que evalúan la vitamina C en COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: No se encontró ningún estudio que cumpliera con los criterios de inclusión, por lo que no hay evidencia para apoyar o refutar el uso de vitamina C en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. Un número sustancial de estudios en curso debería proporcionar evidencia valiosa para informar a los investigadores y los tomadores de decisiones en un futuro próximo.

Contralateral canes for knee osteoarthritis. / Uso de bastones contralaterales en artrosis de rodilla.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis is a relevant health problem given its high prevalence and associated disability. Within the non-pharmacological management alternatives, the use of canes has been proposed, however, there is no consensus in the literature regarding its indication. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified three systematic reviews including four studies overall, of which one was randomized trials. We conclude that the use of a contralateral cane in patients with knee osteoarthritis probably reduces pain. In addition, it could slightly increase function, but the certainty of the evidence is low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La artrosis de rodilla es un problema de salud relevante dada su alta prevalencia y discapacidad asociada. Dentro de las alternativas de manejo no farmacológico se ha planteado el uso de bastones, sin embargo no existe consenso en la literatura respecto a su indicación. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis, preparamos tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos tres revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron cuatro estudios primarios, de los cuales, uno es ensayo aleatorizado. Concluimos que el uso de bastón contralateral en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla probablemente disminuye el dolor. Además, podría aumentar levemente la funcionalidad, pero la certeza de la evidencia es baja.

What are the benefits and risks of total arthroplasty in arthrodesed knees? / What are the benefits and risks of total arthroplasty in arthrodesed knees?

INTRODUCTION: The conversion of a previously arthrodesed knee to a total knee arthroplasty is an alternative seldom used. However, arthroplasty would provide greater functionality to the arthrodesed joint. Since it is a technically demanding procedure, not exempt from complications, there is controversy about the role of this intervention. METHODS: To answer this question we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified two systematic reviews including 10 studies overall, none of which corresponded to a randomized trial. We concluded the conversion of knee arthrodesis to total knee arthroplasty could increase the functionality, but it is not clear whether it increases the complications or if it has any impact on pain or patient satisfaction because the certainty of the evidence is very low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La conversión de una rodilla previamente artrodesada a una artroplastia total de rodilla es una alternativa poco utilizada. Sin embargo, la artroplastia permitiría entregar una funcionalidad considerablemente mayor a la articulación con artrodesis. Dado que es un procedimiento técnicamente demandante y con eventual desarrollo de complicaciones, existe controversia sobre la real utilidad de este procedimiento. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos dos revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron 10 estudios primarios, de los cuales ninguno corresponde a un ensayo aleatorizado. Concluimos que la conversión de artrodesis de rodilla a artroplastia total de rodilla podría aumentar la funcionalidad, pero no está clara la frecuencia o magnitud de las complicaciones ni cuál es el impacto sobre la satisfacción o el dolor porque la certeza de la evidencia es muy baja.