Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dockworkers are exposed to physical overloads that can contribute to the development of musculoskeletal disorders, leading to functional disability and absenteeism. OBJECTIVE: to map, critically appraise, and synthesize the available evidence on the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases associated with port occupational activities. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in structured and unstructured databases in August 2023, with no date or language restriction, to identify observational studies evaluating the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers' occupational activity. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools based on the included study designs. Data from studies were pooled in meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 analytical cross-sectional studies involving 7821 participants in ports of five countries. Most studies (75%) had a moderate methodological quality according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Considering the overall worker categories and any musculoskeletal disorders, the meta-analysis showed a prevalence of 58% (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 37% to 78%), with degenerative spinal diseases 42% (95% CI -0.6% to 91%) and low back pain 36% (95% CI 21% to 50%) being the most prevalent conditions. Symptoms were predominantly in foremen and stevedores. The certainty of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal disorders seem prevalent among dockworkers, mainly degenerative spinal diseases and low back pain. Studies with greater methodological consistency are still needed to validate these hypotheses and assist in decision-making for implementing preventive and informational policies in maritime port management organizations. PROSPERO registry CRD42021257677.

Definition and reporting of composite outcomes are often inadequate in randomized clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the frequency and critically appraise the use and reporting of composite outcomes in randomized clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for coronary artery disease. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A metaresearch study. A search strategy was developed to retrieve references from MEDLINE. We considered articles, published from 1st January 2020, to December 31, 2021, reporting results of clinical primary outcomes from randomized clinical trials which assessed pharmacological interventions, used alone or in combination, for the treatment or secondary prevention (previous coronary event) of coronary artery disease. RESULTS: From the 34 included studies, 28 (82.35%) had a primary composite outcome. Thirteen unique composite primary outcomes were used with the most frequent being "cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke" (12/28, 42.86%). The term major adverse cardiac events was used for five distinct composite primary outcomes. A combination of 12 different components resulted in the 28 primary composite outcomes, with stroke being the most frequent component present in 96.43% (27/28) of the primary composite outcomes. From the included studies, 60.71% (17/28) reported the estimates for each individual component and the direction of the effect was consistent between all components and the composite outcomes in 58.82% (10/17) of them. Additionally, no included study discussed potential limitations and/or related advantages of the composite outcomes. CONCLUSION: In randomized clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for coronary artery disease, composite outcomes are frequently used, but the definition of their components is very heterogeneous. The estimate for individual components within the composite outcome is often not fully reported, which prevents a complete analysis of their adequacy for clinical practice. The term major adverse cardiac events was used inconsistently and to refer to different set of components, which can also be misleading and confusing.

What is an "ongoing" clinical trial? An analysis of different sources revealed heterogeneous definitions of when a clinical trial starts and ends: a meta-research study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Although the concept of an "ongoing study" seems self-explanatory, it is difficult to determine whether a trial is underway. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the definitions of "ongoing clinical trial" across different clinical trial registries, methodological guidelines, and other sources. DESIGN AND SETTING: This meta-research study was conducted at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of relevant clinical trial registry databases, methodological guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, and other sources that would define or regulate clinical trials. RESULTS: We identified various heterogeneous definitions used by eligible sources at both the start and end of a clinical trial. The starting criteria used were as follows: when the team is planning the protocol, when permission is given to conduct the study, or when the first participant is enrolled. Some sources used the time at which the last outcome data was collected as a criterion to determine the end of the trial. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that a study is still "ongoing" during the analysis process. Several sources use a vague definition or present no clear criteria for defining the start or end of a study. CONCLUSION: The concept of "ongoing clinical trials" lacks a transparent and homogeneous definition across relevant sources. A consensus on this concept is important to facilitate the evaluation of available evidence and conduct research synthesis. Further efforts are necessary to determine the best definition for the start and end of a clinical trial.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population. RESULTS: Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

What is an "ongoing" clinical trial? An analysis of different sources revealed heterogeneous definitions of when a clinical trial starts and ends: a meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Although the concept of an "ongoing study" seems self-explanatory, it is difficult to determine whether a trial is underway. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the definitions of "ongoing clinical trial" across different clinical trial registries, methodological guidelines, and other sources. DESIGN AND SETTING: This meta-research study was conducted at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of relevant clinical trial registry databases, methodological guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, and other sources that would define or regulate clinical trials. RESULTS: We identified various heterogeneous definitions used by eligible sources at both the start and end of a clinical trial. The starting criteria used were as follows: when the team is planning the protocol, when permission is given to conduct the study, or when the first participant is enrolled. Some sources used the time at which the last outcome data was collected as a criterion to determine the end of the trial. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that a study is still "ongoing" during the analysis process. Several sources use a vague definition or present no clear criteria for defining the start or end of a study. CONCLUSION: The concept of "ongoing clinical trials" lacks a transparent and homogeneous definition across relevant sources. A consensus on this concept is important to facilitate the evaluation of available evidence and conduct research synthesis. Further efforts are necessary to determine the best definition for the start and end of a clinical trial.

Minimally invasive interventions for biopsy of malignancy-suspected pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Imaging tests are important for diagnosis during the management of pulmonary nodules; however, biopsy is required to confirm the malignancy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different techniques used for the biopsy of a pulmonary nodule. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using Cochrane methodology in São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on minimally invasive techniques, including tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy (PERCUT), transbronchial biopsies with fluoroscopy (FLUOR), endobronchial ultrasound (EBUSR), and electromagnetic navigation (NAVIG). The primary outcomes were diagnostic yield, major adverse events, and need for another approach. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included (913 participants; 39.2% female, mean age: 59.28 years). Little to no increase was observed in PERCUT over FLUOR (P = 0.84), PERCUT over EBUSR (P = 0.32), and EBUSR over NAVIG (P = 0.17), whereas a slight increase was observed in NAVIG over FLUOR (P = 0.17); however, the evidence was uncertain. EBUSR may increase the diagnostic yield over FLUOR (P = 0.34). PERCUT showed little to no increase in all bronchoscopic techniques, with uncertain evidence (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: No biopsy method is definitively superior to others. The preferred approach must consider availability, accessibility, and cost, as safety and diagnostic yield do not differ. Further RCTs planned, conducted, and reported with methodological rigor and transparency are needed, and additional studies should assess cost and the correlation between nodule size and location, as well as their association with biopsy results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database, CRD42018092367 -https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=92367.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Resistance training for postmenopausal women: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Numerous studies have been published assessing the effects of resistance muscle training to mitigate menopausal symptoms, given the endocrine muscle function and its metabolic regulation. Therefore, mapping and synthesizing high-quality studies are necessary to help clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of resistance muscle training for postmenopausal women. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, LILACS, and SPORTDiscus up to December 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the retrieved references and extracted relevant data from included studies. The methodological quality (risk of bias) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias table and the certainty of the evidence (GRADE approach) were assessed. FINDINGS: Twelve randomized clinical trials (n = 452) with unclear to high risk of bias were identified. Compared with no exercise, resistance training (up to 16 weeks) seems to promote an improvement in functional capacity (mean difference [MD], 2.90 points; 95% CI, 0.60-5.20) and bone mineral density (MD, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.10-0.10) and a reduction in the hot flash frequency (13/29 vs 1/29; risk ratio, 13.0; 95% CI, 1.82-93.01) and fat mass (MD, -3.15; 95% CI, -6.68 to 0.38), and no differences were observed between groups regarding abdominal circumference and body mass index. When compared with aerobic exercises, resistance training may result in a reduction of hot flash frequency (7/18 vs 14/18; risk ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27-0.94) and fat mass (MD, -7.80; 95% CI, -14.02 to -1.58) and no difference in the quality of life and body mass index. Regarding safety, no serious adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach, the certainty of this evidence was graded as very low to low, leading to imprecisely estimated effects. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Resistance muscle training seems to improve postmenopausal symptoms and functional capacity. Given the low to very low certainty of the evidence, further randomized clinical trials with higher methodological quality and better reports are still needed. As an implication for clinical practice, health professionals should consider individualized aspects such as the previous history of exercise practice, physical capacity, and adaptation period.

Efficacy and safety of hemodialysis strategies for pregnant women with chronic kidney disease: Systematic review.

Pregnancy in chronic kidney disease (CKD) women is relatively rare, and the less risky choice of hemodialysis is unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of hemodialysis strategies for pregnant CKD women. Sensitive search strategies were applied to six databases without data or language restrictions. Comparative (randomized and non-randomized) studies were prioritized. Two reviewers independently selected, extracted, and critically evaluated data from studies. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I tool, considering the study design (non-randomized comparative observational studies). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. From 7210 references identified, six retrospective cohort studies were included (576 women). The effects of intensive hemodialysis (over 20 h/week) are uncertain for maternal and neonatal mortality (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.26-2.80), miscarriage (Peto OR 0, 38; 95% CI 0.12-1.23), stillbirths (Peto OR 0, 56; 95% CI 0.13-2.31), preterm birth (Peto OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.33-2.28), low birth weight (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.20-2.50) and congenital anomalies rates. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to studies methodological limitations and effect estimates imprecision. The uncertainty about intensive versus conventional hemodialysis effects for pregnant women with CKD and the imprecision in the estimated effects precludes any recommendation. The strategy choice must consider treatment availability, costs, and maternal social aspects until future studies provide more reliable evidence. PROSPERO CRD42021259237.

Most systematic reviews that used the term "update" in title/abstract were not an updated version.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze whether articles labelled as systematic reviews or meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) in the title and used terms "updated" or "update" in the title or abstract are indeed a report of an updated version of a previously existing SR/MA. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed for SRs/MAs, using descriptors updated/update in the title/abstract published in 2018-2019. We analyzed how the articles used the term "update"/"updated" and whether the previous version of SR was referenced. We surveyed authors who indicated that the SR was an updated version, but there was no reference to the original SR. RESULTS: Among 1,118 included articles, most (N = 716; 64%) used the term "update" only to denote that an SR includes recent data. Among 47 authors eligible for survey, 15 replied (32%). Six authors (40%) stated that their article was an updated version and gave reference to the previous version, while 9 authors (60%) stated that their SR was not an updated version of a previous SR. CONCLUSION: Most SRs that used the term "update" in title/abstract were not an updated version of an SR. Authors should use the descriptor "update"/"updated" in their title/abstract only to refer to a new version of an SR to avoid ambiguity.

Supporting Decisions of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency for Supplementary Healthcare: A Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to report implementation and partial results of the project "Supporting the Brazilian regulatory agency for supplementary healthcare through health technology assessment actions" conducted at Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Brazil, from 2020 to 2023, through Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde, a Brazilian Ministry of Health initiative. METHODS: This was a case study conducted at Health Technology Center, Hospital Sírio-Libanês. RESULTS: From its inception, in 2020, to July 2022, the following activities and products were completed: 59 technical-methodological reports assessing the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of technologies received by Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS) to compose its catalog of drugs products and services; 50 analyses of society contributions from public consultation; 34 methodological or clinical tutorial sessions to support ANS team; 2 templates to systematize the update process of ANS catalog; and one training course on systematic reviews and meta-analysis for ANS team. CONCLUSION: The project has contributed to increasing ANS autonomy in the health technology assessment, collaborating to efficiency in technologies offer to the users. By adopting and fostering evidence-based knowledge construction, the project reinforces its bridging role for supporting the consonance between public and supplementary healthcare sectors in Brazil.

Minimally invasive interventions for biopsy of malignancy-suspected pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Imaging tests are important for diagnosis during the management of pulmonary nodules; however, biopsy is required to confirm the malignancy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different techniques used for the biopsy of a pulmonary nodule. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using Cochrane methodology in São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on minimally invasive techniques, including tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy (PERCUT), transbronchial biopsies with fluoroscopy (FLUOR), endobronchial ultrasound (EBUSR), and electromagnetic navigation (NAVIG). The primary outcomes were diagnostic yield, major adverse events, and need for another approach. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included (913 participants; 39.2% female, mean age: 59.28 years). Little to no increase was observed in PERCUT over FLUOR (P = 0.84), PERCUT over EBUSR (P = 0.32), and EBUSR over NAVIG (P = 0.17), whereas a slight increase was observed in NAVIG over FLUOR (P = 0.17); however, the evidence was uncertain. EBUSR may increase the diagnostic yield over FLUOR (P = 0.34). PERCUT showed little to no increase in all bronchoscopic techniques, with uncertain evidence (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: No biopsy method is definitively superior to others. The preferred approach must consider availability, accessibility, and cost, as safety and diagnostic yield do not differ. Further RCTs planned, conducted, and reported with methodological rigor and transparency are needed, and additional studies should assess cost and the correlation between nodule size and location, as well as their association with biopsy results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database, CRD42018092367 -https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=92367.

Biperiden for prevention of post-traumatic epilepsy: A protocol of a double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (BIPERIDEN trial).

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most important causes of acquired structural epilepsy, post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE), however, efficient preventative measures and treatment are still not available to patients. Preclinical studies indicated biperiden, an anticholinergic drug, as a potential drug to modify the epileptogenic process. The main objective of this clinical trial is to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden as an antiepileptogenic agent in patients that suffered TBI. METHODS: This prospective multicenter (n = 10) interventional study will include 312 adult patients admitted to emergency care units with a diagnosis of moderate or severe TBI. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients will be randomized, using block randomization, to receive double-blind treatment with placebo or biperiden for 10 days. Follow-up will occur at specific time windows up to 2 years. Main outcomes are incidence of PTE after TBI and occurrence of severe adverse events. Other outcomes include exploratory investigation of factors that might have benefits for the treatment or might influence its results, such as genetic background, clinical progression, electroencephalographic abnormalities, health-related quality of life and neuropsychological status. Analyses will be conducted following the safety, intention-to-treat and efficacy concepts. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that biperiden treatment will be effective to prevent or mitigate the development of post-traumatic epilepsy in TBI patients. Other health measures from this population also may benefit from treatment with biperiden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04945213. Registered on June 30, 2021.

Estratégias de comunicação de evidências em saúde para gestores e para a população: revisão de escopo / Projeto ESPIE / Health evidence communication strategies for managers and the population: scope review / ESPIE Project

O avanço das mídias digitais e sociais reformulou o conceito de comunicação em saúde, e diferentes estratégias têm sido desenvolvidas para aumentar o entendimento sobre os resultados das pesquisas científicas direcionadas aos gestores e à população. O mapeamento por meio de uma revisão de escopo é necessário para identificar e avaliar a natureza e a extensão da literatura relacionada a essas abordagens para cada público e contexto. Os resultados identificados poderão subsidiar a tomada de decisão de setores envolvidos na promoção do uso do conhecimento científico nos processos decisórios no que se refere à comunicação de evidências no contexto das Políticas Informadas por Evidências (PIE). Foi realizada busca ampla e sensível em bases e repositórios de dados, além de buscas não estruturadas em outras fontes e busca manual para identificação de estudos, de qualquer delineamento metodológico, e documentos publicados a partir de 1o de janeiro de 2000, sobre estratégias para comunicação de evidências científicas para gestores de saúde e/ou população, em nível individual ou populacional, no âmbito da saúde pública ou suplementar, em qualquer nível de assistência. As estratégias foram classificadas e apresentadas narrativamente de acordo com as categorias: comunicação de risco/benefício, comunicação de incerteza, modelos de síntese de evidências e outros documentos em linguagem acessível, orientações para elaboração/avaliação de produtos de comunicação de evidências científicas e ensino/aprendizagem. Esta revisão de escopo identificou 80 estudos, relatórios ou outras formas de apresentação de informações, que abordaram 78 estratégias ou conjuntos de estratégias de comunicação de evidências científicas em saúde para a população e/ou gestores. As estratégias mais frequentes eram de comunicação de risco e benefícios em saúde, apresentaram abordagem. de apoio à Formulação e Implementação de Políticas de Saúde Informadas por Evidências - ESPIE de entrega textual e tinham o status de implementadas e, de alguma forma, avaliadas. Entre as estratégias avaliadas e que parecem apresentar algum benefício estão: • comunicação de risco/benefício: maior compreensão de frequências naturais do que de porcentagens; maior compreensão de risco absoluto, do que riscos relativos e número necessário para tratar; maior compreensão e mudança de comportamento com comunicação numérica do que nominal; maior compreensão de mortalidade do que de sobrevida; comunicações com teor negativo ou de perdas parecem ser mais eficazes para compreensão, satisfação e mudança de comportamento do que comunicações com teor positivo ou de ganho; comunicação nominal pode levar à superestimativa do risco de eventos adversos e pode levar os pacientes a tomarem decisões inadequadas sobre o uso ou não do medicamento. • modelos de síntese de evidências e outros documentos e linguagem acessível: plain languages summaries para comunicar os resultados de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane para a população foram percebidos como mais confiáveis, mais fáceis de encontrar e de compreender e melhores para apoiar as decisões do que os resumos originais. • ensino/aprendizagem: os recursos da iniciativa Informed Health Choices para comunicação e aprendizagem de conceito-chave evidências em saúde parecem ser eficazes em melhorar a habilidade em pensamento crítico em saúde logo após sua utilização, mas estes efeitos não foram observados após um ano; o treinamento teórico-prático para parlamentares sobre evidências científicas em saúde parece ser uma estratégia com potencial de sensibilizar e melhorar a compreensão deste subgrupo de gestores sobre evidências em saúde. Esta revisão de escopo identificou 78 estratégias ou conjuntos para estratégias de comunicação de evidências em saúde para gestores e população. Algumas delas foram implementadas, avaliadas e parecem ter algum benefício para melhorar a compreensão destes públicos sobre conceitos de evidências e resultados em saúde. Os achados desta revisão têm um importante potencial de aplicabilidade na área de políticas informadas por evidências. Esforços futuros são necessários para padronizar e estimular o relato destas estratégias e avaliar seus efeitos em desfechos clínicos relevantes para o indivíduo, para a sociedade e para os sistemas de saúde.

Strategies for promoting mental health among residents: scoping review protocol.

Health professionals are encouraged to attend a residency period of two to seven years after graduating. The typical demands of this in-service training modality have been associated with reduced sleep quality, decreased exercise frequency, and detachment from family and social relationships, leading to an increased diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and burnout syndrome. Therefore, conducting a scoping review to identify strategies aimed at promoting mental health and wellbeing among residents from different health areas is essential to support any forthcoming preventive action.

Vitamin C-based regimens for sepsis and septic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: to critically appraise and synthesize the evidence on the effects of vitamin C-based regimens for patients with sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: a broad search was performed on May 2021 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing vitamin C-based regimens as adjuvant therapy for adults with sepsis or septic shock. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias table to assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs and the GRADE approach to evaluate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs (2124 participants). Evidence from low to very low certainty showed that vitamin C compared to placebo may reduce all-cause mortality up to 28 days (relative risk [RR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.80, 4 RCTs, 335 participants). Considering the other comparisons (vitamin C alone or combined with thiamine and/or hydrocortisone, compared to placebo, standard care or hydrocortisone), there were a little to no difference or very uncertain evidence for adverse events, SOFA score, ICU length of stay, acute kidney injury, mechanical ventilation- and vasoactive drugs-free days up to 28 days. CONCLUSION: Further RCTs with higher methodological quality, an increased number of participants and assessing clinically relevant outcomes are needed to provide better decision-making guidance. PROSPERO REGISTER: CRD42021251786.

Association between genetic polymorphisms and osteoarthritis development. Overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, critically evaluate and synthesize the evidence obtained from systematic reviews on the association between genetic polymorphisms and osteoarthritis (OA) development. METHODS: Considering gene polymorphisms associated with OA susceptibility (risk or protection), a comprehensive search was conducted in the following databases, without date or language restrictions: MEDLINE, via Pubmed; Embase, via Elsevier; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, via Wiley; Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde. Gray literature was also searched through the OpenGrey database. The AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. RESULTS: We included 14 systematic reviews of case-control studies comparing individuals with a radiographic diagnosis of all OA types and healthy controls, all submitted to the genetic examination of different polymorphisms in candidate genes. Meta-analyses showed a protective effect against knee and hand OA associated with GDF-5 gene (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-0.95), and knee OA with ESRα gene (OR 0.63, 95% CI 1.26-1.97). SMAD3 gene was associated with knee and hip OA risk (OR 1.21. 95% CI 1.07-1.38) and MMP-1 gene was associated with temporomandibular OA (OR 1.58. 95% CI 1.26-1.97). CONCLUSION: Based on low-quality to critically-low-quality systematic reviews, some gene polymorphisms seem to be associated with risk or protection for OA. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate these hypotheses, contribute to disease understanding, and possibly help the decision-making related to early diagnosis and treatment options for OA. PROSPERO register CRD42021234231.

Open data and data sharing in articles about COVID-19 published in preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv.

This study aimed to analyze the content of data availability statements (DAS) and the actual sharing of raw data in preprint articles about COVID-19. The study combined a bibliometric analysis and a cross-sectional survey. We analyzed preprint articles on COVID-19 published on medRxiv and bioRxiv from January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2020. We extracted data sharing statements, tried to locate raw data when authors indicated they were available, and surveyed authors. The authors were surveyed in 2020-2021. We surveyed authors whose articles did not include DAS, who indicated that data are available on request, or their manuscript reported that raw data are available in the manuscript, but raw data were not found. Raw data collected in this study are published on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6ztec/). We analyzed 897 preprint articles. There were 699 (78%) articles with Data/Code field present on the website of a preprint server. In 234 (26%) preprints, data/code sharing statement was reported within the manuscript. For 283 preprints that reported that data were accessible, we found raw data/code for 133 (47%) of those 283 preprints (15% of all analyzed preprint articles). Most commonly, authors indicated that data were available on GitHub or another clearly specified web location, on (reasonable) request, in the manuscript or its supplementary files. In conclusion, preprint servers should require authors to provide data sharing statements that will be included both on the website and in the manuscript. Education of researchers about the meaning of data sharing is needed. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04346-1.