Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? CURRENT PRACTICE: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and ß blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective. THE EVIDENCE: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data. RESULTS: We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus. RESULTS: The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey. CONCLUSION: The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I2 = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I2 = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I2 = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Plasma exchange and glucocorticoid dosing for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTIONS: What is the role of plasma exchange and what is the optimal dose of glucocorticoids in the first 6 months of therapy of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV)? This guideline was triggered by the publication of a new randomised controlled trial. CURRENT PRACTICE: Existing guideline recommendations vary regarding the use of plasma exchange in AAV and lack explicit recommendations regarding the tapering regimen of glucocorticoids during induction therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation against plasma exchange in patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing end stage kidney disease (ESKD), and a weak recommendation in favour of plasma exchange in patients with moderate-high or high risk of developing ESKD. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without renal involvement, the panel suggests not using plasma exchange (weak recommendation). The panel made a strong recommendation in favour of a reduced dose rather than standard dose regimen of glucocorticoids, which involves a more rapid taper rate and lower cumulative dose during the first six months of therapy. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, a care giver, clinicians, content experts, and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. The recommendations are based on two linked systematic reviews. The panel took an individual patient perspective in the development of recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: The systematic review of plasma exchange identified nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 1060 patients with AAV. Plasma exchange probably has little or no effect on mortality or disease relapse (moderate and low certainty). Plasma exchange probably reduces the one year risk of ESKD (approximately 0.1% reduction in those with low risk, 2.1% reduction in those with low-moderate risk, 4.6% reduction in those with moderate-high risk, and 16.0% reduction in those with high risk or requiring dialysis) but increases the risk of serious infections (approximately 2.7% increase in those with low risk, 4.9% increase in those with low-moderate risk, 8.5% increase in those with moderate-high risk, to 13.5% in high risk group) at 1 year (moderate to high certainty). The guideline panel agreed that most patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD would consider the harms to outweigh the benefits, while most of those with moderate-high or high risk would consider the benefits to outweigh the harms. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement, based on indirect evidence, plasma exchange may have little or no effect on death (very low certainty) but may have an important increase in serious infections at 1 year (approximately 6.8% increase, low certainty). The systematic review of different dose regimens of glucocorticoids identified two RCTs at low risk of bias with 704 and 140 patients respectively. A reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoid probably reduces the risk of serious infections by approximately 5.9% to 12.8% and probably does not increase the risk of ESKD at the follow-up of 6 months to longer than 1 year (moderate certainty for both outcomes). UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendations were made with the understanding that patients would place a high value on reduction in ESKD and less value on avoiding serious infections. The panel concluded that most (50-90%) of fully informed patients with AAV and with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would decline plasma exchange, whereas most patients with moderate-high or high risk or requiring dialysis with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would choose to receive plasma exchange. The panel also inferred that the majority of fully informed patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement would decline plasma exchange and that all or almost all (≥90%) fully informed patients with AAV would choose a reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoids during the first 6 months of therapy.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect. RESULTS: We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs. REGISTRATION: CRD42020192095.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

Risk of dispersion or aerosol generation and infection transmission with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detection of COVID-19: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2-related disease, referred to as COVID-19, has emerged as a global pandemic since December 2019. While there is growing recognition regarding possible airborne transmission, particularly in the setting of aerosol-generating procedures and treatments, whether nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 generate aerosols remains unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 3 November 2020. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Medical Journal Network, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 29 March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All comparative and non-comparative studies that evaluated dispersion or aerosolisation of viable airborne organisms, or transmission of infection associated with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing. RESULTS: Of 7702 citations, only one study was deemed eligible. Using a dedicated sampling room with negative pressure isolation room, personal protective equipment including N95 or higher masks, strict sterilisation protocols, structured training with standardised collection methods and a structured collection and delivery system, a tertiary care hospital proved a 0% healthcare worker infection rate among eight nurses conducting over 11 000 nasopharyngeal swabs. No studies examining transmissibility with other safety protocols, nor any studies quantifying the risk of aerosol generation with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited to no published data regarding aerosol generation and risk of transmission with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Field experiments to quantify this risk are warranted. Vigilance in adhering to current standards for infection control is suggested.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

PURPOSE: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE: Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons réalisé deux comptes rendus sur commande de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé pour guider l'utilisation de canules nasales à haut débit (CNHD) chez les patients ayant contracté le coronavirus (COVID-19). Nous avons synthétisé les données probantes concernant leur efficacité et leur innocuité (compte rendu 1), ainsi que les risques de dispersion des gouttelettes, de génération d'aérosols, et de transmission associée d'éléments viraux (compte rendu 2). SOURCE: Des recherches de littérature ont été réalisées dans les bases de données Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ainsi que dans les bases de données chinoises et medRxiv. Compte rendu 1 : nous avons synthétisé les résultats d'études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) comparant les CNHD à une oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez des patients en état critique atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Compte rendu 2 : nous avons résumé sous forme narrative les constatations d'études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes, la génération d'aérosols ou la transmission infectieuse associées aux CNHD. Pour les deux comptes rendus, des réviseurs appariés ont réalisé la sélection des études, l'extraction des données et l'évaluation du risque de biais de manière indépendante. Nous avons évalué la certitude des données probantes en nous fondant sur la méthodologie GRADE. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Aucune étude éligible n'incluait de patients atteints de COVID-19. Compte rendu 1 : 12 ERC (n = 1989 patients) ont fourni des données probantes de certitude faible selon lesquelles les CNHD réduiraient la ventilation invasive (risque relatif [RR], 0,85; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,74 à 0,99) et l'intensification de l'oxygénothérapie (RR, 0,71; IC 95 %, 0,51 à 0,98) chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire. Les résultats n'ont pas démontré de différences en matière de mortalité (certitude modérée), ni de durée du séjour hospitalier ou à l'unité des soins intensifs (certitude modérée et faible, respectivement). Compte rendu 2 : quatre études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes et trois évaluant la génération et la dispersion d'aérosols ont fourni des données probantes de très faible certitude. Deux études de simulation et une étude croisée ont donné des résultats mitigés quant à l'effet des CNHD sur la dispersion des gouttelettes. Bien que deux études de simulation n'aient rapporté aucune augmentation associée concernant la dispersion d'aérosols, l'une a rapporté que des taux de débit plus élevés étaient associés à des régions à densité d'aérosols élevée plus grandes. CONCLUSION: Les canules nasales à haut débit pourraient réduire la nécessité de recourir à la ventilation invasive et l'escalade des traitements par rapport à l'oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 souffrant d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Cet avantage doit être soupesé contre le risque inconnu de transmission atmosphérique.

Correction to: Methods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported a change in the 'Competing interests' section as described below.

Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials, with a total of 1062 randomised participants with rotator cuff disease, all with subacromial impingement. Two trials (506 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression with arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), with all groups receiving postoperative exercises. These trials included a third treatment group: no treatment (active monitoring) in one and exercises in the other. Six trials (556 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercises alone. Two of these trials included a third arm: sham laser in one and open subacromial decompression in the other.Trial size varied from 42 to 313 participants. Participant mean age ranged between 42 and 65 years. Only two trials reported mean symptom duration (18 to 22 months in one trial and 30 to 31 months in the other), two did not report duration and four reported it categorically.Both placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias for the comparison of surgery versus placebo surgery. The other trials were at high risk of bias for several criteria, most notably at risk of performance or detection bias due to lack of participant and personnel blinding. We have restricted the reporting of results of benefits in the Abstract to the placebo-controlled trials.Compared with placebo, high-certainty evidence indicates that subacromial decompression provides no improvement in pain, shoulder function, or health-related quality of life up to one year, and probably no improvement in global success (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision).At one year, mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain), was 2.9 points after placebo surgery and 0.26 better (0.84 better to 0.33 worse), after subacromial decompression (284 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (8% better to 3% worse), and relative difference of 4% (12% better to 5% worse). At one year, mean function (on a scale 0 to 100, higher score indicating better outcome), was 69 points after placebo surgery and 2.8 better (1.4 worse to 6.9 better), after surgery (274 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative difference of 9% (22% better to 4% worse). Global success rate was 97/148 (or 655 per 1000), after placebo and 101/142 (or 708 per 1000) after surgery corresponding to RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). Health-related quality of life was 0.73 units (European Quality of Life EQ-5D, -0.59 to 1, higher score indicating better quality of life), after placebo and 0.03 units worse (0.011 units worse to 0.06 units better), after subacromial decompression (285 participants), an absolute difference of 1.3% (5% worse to 2.5% better), and relative difference of 4% (15% worse to 7% better).Adverse events including frozen shoulder or transient minor complications of surgery were reported in approximately 3% of participants across treatment groups in two randomised controlled trials, but due to low event rates we are uncertain if the risks differ between groups: 5/165 (37 per 1000) reported adverse events with subacromial decompression and 9/241 (34 per 1000) with placebo or non-operative treatment, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.65) (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). The trials did not report serious adverse events.Based upon moderate-certainty evidence from two observational trials from the same prospective surgery registry, which also included other shoulder arthroscopic procedures (downgraded for indirectness), the incidence proportion of serious adverse events within 30 days following surgery was 0.5% (0.4% to 0.7%; data collected 2006 to 2011), or 0.6% (0.5 % to 0.7%; data collected 2011 to 2013). Serious adverse events such as deep infection, pulmonary embolism, nerve injury, and death have been observed in participants following shoulder surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data in this review do not support the use of subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff disease manifest as painful shoulder impingement. High-certainty evidence shows that subacromial decompression does not provide clinically important benefits over placebo in pain, function or health-related quality of life. Including results from open-label trials (with high risk of bias) did not change the estimates considerably. Due to imprecision, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate for global assessment of treatment success; there was probably no clinically important benefit in this outcome either compared with placebo, exercises or non-operative treatment.Adverse event rates were low, 3% or less across treatment groups in the trials, which is consistent with adverse event rates reported in the two observational studies. Although precise estimates are unknown, the risk of serious adverse events is likely less than 1%.

Methods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews and editorials suggest that many organizations that produce nutritional guideline recommendations do not adhere to internationally recognized standards set forth by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), Guidelines International Network (GIN), Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE), and Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). METHODS: The potential solution is an independent group with content expertise and skilled in the methodology of systematic reviews and practice guidelines to produce trustworthy guideline recommendations, recommendations that are supported by publication in a top tier journal. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations project has recently demonstrated the feasibility and utility of this approach. Here, we are proposing trustworthy nutritional guideline recommendations based on internationally accepted guideline development standards, recommendations that will be informed by rigorous and novel systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with nutritional exposures, as well as studies on the values and preferences related to dietary behaviors among members of the international community. DISCUSSION: Adhering to international guideline standards, conducting high quality systematic reviews, and actively assessing the values and preferences of key stakeholders is expected to improve the quality of nutritional guidelines and their relevance to end-users, particularly patients and community members. We will send our work for peer review, and if found acceptable, we will publish our nutritional recommendations in top-tier general medicine journals.