The impact of outdoor pollution and extreme temperatures on asthma-related outcomes: A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines on environmental science for allergic diseases and asthma.

Air pollution is one of the biggest environmental threats for asthma. Its impact is augmented by climate change. To inform the recommendations of the EAACI Guidelines on the environmental science for allergic diseases and asthma, a systematic review (SR) evaluated the impact on asthma-related outcomes of short-term exposure to outdoor air pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, NO2 , SO2 , O3 , and CO), heavy traffic, outdoor pesticides, and extreme temperatures. Additionally, the SR evaluated the impact of the efficacy of interventions reducing outdoor pollutants. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-E tools and the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE. Short-term exposure to PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 probably increases the risk of asthma-related hospital admissions (HA) and emergency department (ED) visits (moderate certainty evidence). Exposure to heavy traffic may increase HA and deteriorate asthma control (low certainty evidence). Interventions reducing outdoor pollutants may reduce asthma exacerbations (low to very low certainty evidence). Exposure to fumigants may increase the risk of new-onset asthma in agricultural workers, while exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene may increase the risk of asthma-related ED visits (low certainty evidence). Heatwaves and cold spells may increase the risk of asthma-related ED visits and HA and asthma mortality (low certainty evidence).

The impact of indoor pollution on asthma-related outcomes: A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines on environmental science for allergic diseases and asthma.

Systematic review using GRADE of the impact of exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), cleaning agents, mould/damp, pesticides on the risk of (i) new-onset asthma (incidence) and (ii) adverse asthma-related outcomes (impact). MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for indoor pollutant exposure studies reporting on new-onset asthma and critical and important asthma-related outcomes. Ninety four studies were included: 11 for VOCs (7 for incidenceand 4 for impact), 25 for cleaning agents (7 for incidenceand 8 for impact), 48 for damp/mould (26 for incidence and 22 for impact) and 10 for pesticides (8 for incidence and 2 for impact). Exposure to damp/mould increases the risk of new-onset wheeze (moderate certainty evidence). Exposure to cleaning agents may be associated with a higher risk of new-onset asthma and with asthma severity (low level of certainty). Exposure to pesticides and VOCs may increase the risk of new-onset asthma (very low certainty evidence). The impact on asthma-related outcomes of all major indoor pollutants is uncertain. As the level of certainty is low or very low for most of the available evidence on the impact of indoor pollutants on asthma-related outcomes more rigorous research in the field is warranted.

Frequency of anticancer drug use at the end of life: a scoping review

Purpose Anticancer drug use at the end of life places potential extra burdens on patients and the healthcare system. Previous articles show variability in methods and outcomes; thus, their results are not directly comparable. This scoping review describes the methods and extent of anticancer drug use at end of life. Methods Systematic searches in Medline and Embase were conducted to identify articles reporting anticancer drug use at the end of life. Results We selected 341 eligible publications, identifying key study features including timing of research, disease status, treatment schedule, treatment type, and treatment characteristics. Among the subset of 69 articles of all cancer types published within the last 5 years, we examined the frequency of anticancer drug use across various end of life periods. Conclusion This comprehensive description of publications on anticancer drug use at end of life underscores the importance of methodological factors when designing studies and comparing outcomes (AU)

Frequency of anticancer drug use at the end of life: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Anticancer drug use at the end of life places potential extra burdens on patients and the healthcare system. Previous articles show variability in methods and outcomes; thus, their results are not directly comparable. This scoping review describes the methods and extent of anticancer drug use at end of life. METHODS: Systematic searches in Medline and Embase were conducted to identify articles reporting anticancer drug use at the end of life. RESULTS: We selected 341 eligible publications, identifying key study features including timing of research, disease status, treatment schedule, treatment type, and treatment characteristics. Among the subset of 69 articles of all cancer types published within the last 5 years, we examined the frequency of anticancer drug use across various end of life periods. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive description of publications on anticancer drug use at end of life underscores the importance of methodological factors when designing studies and comparing outcomes.

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis. RCT identification remains challenging because of limitations in their indexation in major databases and potential language bias. Scientific production in Latin American nursing is steadily increasing, but little is known about its design or main features. We aimed to identify the extent of evidence from RCTs in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams and evaluate their main characteristics, including potential risk of bias. DESIGN: Scoping review with risk of bias assessment. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review including a comprehensive electronic search in five relevant databases. We completed a descriptive data analysis and a risk of bias assessment of eligible studies using Cochrane's guidance. RESULTS: We identified 1784 references of which 47 were RCTs published in 40 journals. Twenty (42.6%) RCTs were published in journals in English. Chronic diseases were the most common health conditions studied (29.7%). Fifteen (31.9%) RCTs had a high risk of bias. Thirty (75%) journals were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) catalog and 5 (16.7%) were journals classified under nursing category. Twenty-one (52.5%) journals explicitly required CONSORT checklist recommendations for RCTs reporting. CONCLUSION: Publication of RCTs in nursing by Latin American authors has increased. Most journals where RCTs are published are in English and not specific to nursing. Searches in journals of other disciplines may be necessary to facilitate identification of RCTs in nursing. CONSORT statements need to be actively promoted to facilitate rigorous methodology and reporting of RCTs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study highlights the need for an increased research focus on RCTs in nursing in Latin America, and the importance of enhancing the reporting quality of these studies to support evidence-based nursing practice.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map.

Introduction: Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes. Methods: In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer. Results: We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care. Discussion: Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.

Desalination brine effects beyond excess salinity: Unravelling specific stress signaling and tolerance responses in the seagrass Posidonia oceanica.

Desalination has been proposed as a global strategy for tackling freshwater shortage in the climate change era. However, there is a concern regarding the environmental effects of high salinity brines discharged from desalination plants on benthic communities. In this context, seagrasses such as the Mediterranean endemic and ecologically important Posidonia oceanica have shown high vulnerability to elevated salinities. Most ecotoxicological studies regarding desalination effects are based on salinity increments using artificial sea salts, although it has been postulated that certain additives within the industrial process of desalination may exacerbate a negative impact beyond just the increased salinities of the brine. To assess the potential effect of whole effluent brines on P. oceanica, mesocosm experiments were conducted within 10 days, simulating salinity increment with either artificial sea salts or brines from a desalination plant (at 43 psµ, 6 psµ over the natural 37 psµ). Morphometrical (growth and necrosis), photochemical (PSII chlorophyll a fluorometry), metabolic, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), thiobarbituric reactive substances (TBARS) and ascorbate/dehydroascorbate (ASC/DHA), and molecular (expression of key tolerance genes) responses were analyzed in each different treatment. Although with a still positive leaf growth, associated parameters decreased similarly for both artificial sea salt and brine treatments. Photochemical parameters did not show general patterns, although only P. oceanica under brines demonstrated greater energy release through heat (NPQ). Lipid peroxidation and upregulation of genes related to oxidative stress (GR, MnSOD, and FeSOD) or ion exclusion (SOS3 and AKT2/3) were similarly incremented on both hypersalinity treatments. Conversely, the ASC/DHA ratio was significantly lower, and the expression of SOS1, CAT, and STRK1 was increased under brine influence. This study revealed that although metabolic and photochemical differences occurred under both hypersalinity treatments, growth (the last sign of physiological detriment) was similarly compromised, suggesting that the potential effects of desalination are mainly caused by brine-associated salinities and are not particularly related to other industrial additives.

Search strategies (filters) to identify systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase.

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases provide access to an international body of scientific literature in health and medical sciences. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for clinicians, researchers, consumers, and policymakers as they address a specific health-related question and use explicit methods to identify, appraise and synthesize evidence from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. Methodological search filters help database end-users search the literature effectively with different levels of sensitivity and specificity. These filters have been developed for various study designs and have been found to be particularly useful for intervention studies. Other filters have been developed for finding systematic reviews. Considering the variety and number of available search filters for systematic reviews, there is a need for a review of them in order to provide evidence about their retrieval properties at the time they were developed. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically empirical studies that report the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if one of their primary objectives is the development, evaluation, or comparison of a search filter that could be used to retrieve systematic reviews on MEDLINE, Embase, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-specified and piloted data extraction form using InterTASC Information Specialist Subgroup (ISSG) Search Filter Evaluation Checklist. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies that developed filters for MEDLINE and three studies that developed filters for Embase. Most studies are very old and some were limited to systematic reviews in specific clinical areas. Six included studies reported the sensitivity of their developed filter. Seven studies reported precision and six studies reported specificity. Only one study reported the number needed to read and positive predictive value. None of the filters were designed to differentiate systematic reviews on the basis of their methodological quality. For MEDLINE, all filters showed similar sensitivity and precision, and one filter showed higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited study reports that may affect accuracy assessments. The report of these studies had some limitations, and the assessments of their accuracy may suffer from indirectness, considering that they were mostly developed before the release of the PRISMA 2009 statement or due to their limited scope in the selection of systematic review topics. Search filters for MEDLINE Three studies produced filters with sensitivity > 90% with variable degrees of precision, and only one of them was developed and validated in a gold-standard database, which allowed the calculation of specificity. The other two search filters had lower levels of sensitivity. One of these produced a filter with higher levels of specificity (> 90%). All filters showed similar sensitivity and precision in the external validation, except for one which was not externally validated and another one which was conceptually derived and only externally validated. Search filters for Embase We identified three studies that developed filters for this database. One of these studies developed filters with variable sensitivity and precision, including highly sensitive strategies (> 90%); however, it was not externally validated. The other study produced a filter with a lower sensitivity (72.7%) but high specificity (99.1%) with a similar performance in the external validation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies reporting the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE showed similar sensitivity and precision, with one filter showing higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited information about how the filter was produced, which leaves us uncertain about their performance assessments. Newer filters had limitations in their methods or scope, including very focused subject topics for their gold standards, limiting their applicability across other topics. Our findings highlight that consensus guidance on the conduct of search filters and standardized reporting of search filters are needed, as we found highly heterogeneous development methods, accuracy assessments and outcome selection. New strategies adaptable across interfaces could enhance their usability. Moreover, the performance of existing filters needs to be evaluated in light of the impact of reporting guidelines, including the PRISMA 2009, on how systematic reviews are reported. Finally, future filter developments should also consider comparing the filters against a common reference set to establish comparative performance and assess the quality of systematic reviews retrieved by strategies.

Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE). MAIN RESULTS: A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Basal procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and presepsin for prediction of mortality in critically ill septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Numerous biomarkers have been proposed for diagnosis, therapeutic, and prognosis in sepsis. Previous evaluations of the value of biomarkers for predicting mortality due to this life-threatening condition fail to address the complexity of this condition and the risk of bias associated with prognostic studies. We evaluate the predictive performance of four of these biomarkers in the prognosis of mortality through a methodologically sound evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine, in critically ill adults with sepsis, whether procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and presepsin (sCD14) are independent prognostic factors for mortality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2023. Only Phase-2 confirmatory prognostic factor studies among critically ill septic adults were included. Random effects meta-analyses pooled the prognostic association estimates. RESULTS: We included 60 studies (15,681 patients) with 99 biomarker assessments. Quality of the statistical analysis and reporting domains using the QUIPS tool showed high risk of bias in > 60% assessments. The biomarker measurement as a continuous variable in models adjusted by key covariates (age and severity score) for predicting mortality at 28-30 days showed a null or near to null association for basal PCT (pooled OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-1.003), CRP (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.17), and IL-6 (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03) and sCD14 (pooled HR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.000 to 1.006). Additional meta-analyses accounting for other prognostic covariates had similarly null findings. CONCLUSION: Baseline, isolated measurement of PCT, CRP, IL-6, and sCD14 has not been shown to help predict mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis. The role of these biomarkers should be evaluated in new studies where the patient selection would be standardized and the measurement of biomarker results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019128790).

Risk-of-bias assessment of the randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews on surgical treatments for breast cancer-related lymphedema: A mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment is the principal cause of lymphedema in the upper extremities. Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) treatments were previously based on conservative therapy; surgical treatments are alternative options that could be highly beneficial, especially for patients who are not responsive to conservative therapy. The main aim of this study was to describe and critically assess the risk of bias of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) on surgical treatment for BCRL. METHODS: We conducted an evidence mapping review according to the methodology proposed by Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). An update was done for our previous systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Epistemonikos from the year 2000 onward. We assessed the risk of bias for the RCTs and SRs using the RoB-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. RESULTS: Two surgical RCTs and eight SRs were found among the 47 surgical studies that met the eligibility criteria. The overall risk-of-bias assessments of these studies were rated as some concerns (six outcomes) and high risk (three outcomes) for the measured outcomes among the RCTs and as a high risk of bias (five studies) and low risk (three studies) for the included SRs. CONCLUSIONS: The overall evidence in the literature on surgical treatment for BCRL is low, as there are few published RCTs and SRs, and the risk-of-bias assessment for the majority was rated as high risk of bias or with some concerns. High-quality studies are needed to improve evidence-based decision-making by surgeons and patients.

Characteristics and impact of interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with guideline recommendations for breast cancer: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients. Suboptimal compliance with breast cancer guideline recommendations remains frequent, and has been associated with a decreased survival. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize and determine the impact of available interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with CPGs recommendations in breast cancer healthcare. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and primary studies in PubMed and Embase (from inception to May 2021). We included experimental and observational studies reporting on the use of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and critical appraisal was conducted by one reviewer, and cross-checked by a second reviewer. Using the same approach, we synthesized the characteristics and the effects of the interventions by type of intervention (according to the EPOC taxonomy), and applied the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 35 primary studies reporting on 24 different interventions. Most frequently described interventions consisted in computerized decision support systems (12 studies); educational interventions (seven), audit and feedback (two), and multifaceted interventions (nine). There is low quality evidence that educational interventions targeted to healthcare professionals may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. There is moderate quality evidence that reminder systems for healthcare professionals improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. There is low quality evidence that multifaceted interventions may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. The effectiveness of the remaining types of interventions identified have not been evaluated with appropriate study designs for such purpose. There is very limited data on the costs of implementing these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs recommendations are available, and most of them show positive effects. More robust trials are needed to strengthen the available evidence base concerning their efficacy. Gathering data on the costs of implementing the proposed interventions is needed to inform decisions about their widespread implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42018092884 (PROSPERO).

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR). Twelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias. No study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I2 = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm2, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I2 = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I2 = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I2 = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone. The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. CONCLUSION: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.

Systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a scoping review and evidence map.

PURPOSE: To identify, describe, and organise currently available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) (chemotherapy, targeted/biological therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and evidence mapping, adhering to PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. We included systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies evaluating SOTs compared to BSC or no treatment in patients with advanced PC. Two independent reviewers performed the screening process and data extraction. We developed evidence maps as an interactive visualization display, including the assessed interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 50,601 records obtained from our search, we included 43 studies: 2 SRs, 16 RCTs, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 20 observational studies, and 1 protocol for a quasi-experimental study. Forty-two studies reported survival-related outcomes and most favoured SOTs, while five reported toxicity and most favoured BSC. Other patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, were scarcely reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the current evidence gaps in studies assessing treatments for patients with advanced PC, mainly the lack of reports of non-survival-related outcomes, pointing out research areas that need further attention to make better recommendations for these patients.

The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis and node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis and node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection. METHODS: The more relevant databases were searched. Main outcomes were false-negative rate (FNR), sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. We conducted meta-analyses when appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. The pooled FNR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.17), the pooled SLNIR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), NPV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87), and summary accuracy was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). SLNB performed better when more than one node was removed and double mapping was used. CONCLUSIONS: SLNB can be performed in women with a node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy. It has a better performance when used with previous marking of the affected node and with double tracer.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions to prevent adverse events in the intensive care unit: A review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Different types of interventions have been assessed for the prevention of adverse events. However, determining which patient-safety practice is most effective can be challenging when there is no systematised evidence synthesis. An overview following the best methodological standards can provide the best reliable integrative evidence. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide an overview of effectiveness nonpharmacological interventions aimed at preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit. METHODS: A review of systematic reviews (SRs) was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched for SRs published until March 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed the study's quality, using AMSTAR-2, and extracted data on intervention characteristics and effect on prevention of adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-seven SRs were included, and 27 nonpharmacological interventions were identified to prevent 11 adverse events. Most of the reviews had critically low methodological quality. Among all the identified interventions, subglottic secretion drainage, semirecumbent position, and kinetic bed therapy were effective in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia; the use of earplugs, early mobilisation, family participation, and music in reducing delirium; physical rehabilitation in improving muscle strength; use of respiratory support in preventing reintubation; the use of a computerised physician order entry system in reducing risk of medication errors; and the use of heated water humidifier was effective in reducing artificial airway occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Some nonpharmacological interventions reduced adverse events in the intensive care setting. These findings should be interpreted carefully due to the low methodological quality. SRs on preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit should adhere to quality assessment tools so that best evidence can be used in decision-making.

Impact of gestational diabetes mellitus treatment on medium/long-term outcomes after pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: We aimed to evaluate the effect of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment on medium/long-term outcomes both the mother and offspring. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on randomized clinical trials addressing specific treatment of women with GDM versus usual care and its impact on maternal and offspring outcomes at medium/long-term. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 8 October 2021. OUTCOME VARIABLES: maternal (diabetes, metabolic syndrome, 12 secondary); offspring (diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, high body mass index, 15 secondary). Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane tool and aggregation performed with Revman 5.4. RESULTS: We included five studies (1140 women, 767 offspring) with follow-up ranging 4-16 years after delivery. GDM treatment likely does not reduce risk of maternal diabetes (RR 1.00; [95% CI 0.82-1.23]) and may not reduce that of metabolic syndrome (RR 0.93; [95% CI 0.71-1.22]). We obtained very uncertain evidence that treatment may increase maternal HDL-cholesterol. Findings showed that GDM treatment may not have an impact on infants' outcomes (RRs 0.79; [95% CI 0.39-1.69] for impaired fasting glucose; RR 0.91; [95% CI 0.74-1.12] for body mass index >85th centile and 0.89; [95% CI 0.65-1.22] for body mass index >95th centile respectively). CONCLUSIONS: With current evidence is uncertain if specific treatment of women with GDM has an impact on medium/long-term metabolic outcomes either in the mother or in the offspring. These results add evidence to the recommendation of systematically reevaluating mother and offspring after delivery. REGISTRATION: OSF, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KFN79.

Dual neoadjuvant blockade plus chemotherapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of women with non-metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the effect of dual anti-HER2 blockade compared to monotherapy on clinically important outcomes. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review updated until July 2022. The outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), clinical response, event-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: We identified eleven randomized clinical trials (2836 patients). When comparing paclitaxel plus dual treatment versus paclitaxel plus trastuzumab or lapatinib, dual treatment was associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.02-4.10). Addition of a taxane to an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil, plus lapatinib or trastuzumab, showed that the dual treatment was better than lapatinib alone (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.41-4.34), or trastuzumab alone (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.13-3.16). Dual treatment may result in an increase in survival outcomes and tumour clinical response, although such benefits are not consistent for all the combinations studied. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dual blockade with combinations of trastuzumab and pertuzumab can be recommended for the neoadjuvant treatment of women with HER2-positive breast cancer. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018110273.