Effectiveness and Safety of Measures to Prevent Infections and Other Complications Associated With Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) contribute substantially to the global burden of infections. This systematic review assessed 24 infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions to prevent PIVC-associated infections and other complications. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, WHO Global Index Medicus, CINAHL, and reference lists for controlled studies from 1 January 1980-16 March 2023. We dually selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and rated the certainty of evidence (COE). For outcomes with 3 or more trials, we conducted Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 105 studies met our prespecified eligibility criteria, addressing 16 of the 24 research questions; no studies were identified for 8 research questions. Based on findings of low to high COE, wearing gloves reduced the risk of overall adverse events related to insertion compared with no gloves (1 non-randomized controlled trial [non-RCT]; adjusted risk ratio [RR], .52; 95% CI, .33-.85), and catheter removal based on defined schedules potentially resulted in a lower phlebitis/thrombophlebitis incidence (10 RCTs; RR, 0.74, 95% credible interval, .49-1.01) compared with clinically indicated removal in adults. In neonates, chlorhexidine reduced the phlebitis score compared with non-chlorhexidine-containing disinfection (1 RCT; 0.14 vs 0.68; P = .003). No statistically significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their frequent use and concern about PIVC-associated complications, this review underscores the urgent need for more high-quality studies on effective IPC methods regarding safe PIVC management. In the absence of valid evidence, adherence to standard precaution measures and documentation remain the most important principles to curb PIVC complications. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/exdb4).

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

[WHO Recommendations for Care of the Preterm or Low-Birth-Weight Infant]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Versorgung von Frühgeborenen und Neugeborenen mit niedrigem Geburtsgewicht.

BACKGROUND: Premature infants (gestation age<37 weeks) and low-birth-weight infants (< 2.5 kg) require complex care to ensure their survival, growth and neurological development. Increased risk for developmental disorders, infections, and challenges with nutrition and body temperature regulation require comprehensive measures in care. AIM: The aim of this guideline was to improve the care of premature and low-birth-weight infants through updated recommendations. METHODS: The recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) have been implemented in this guideline in accordance with the WHO handbook for guideline development. This publication has been translated into German by staff members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: This guideline includes 11 strong and 14 conditional recommendations, of which 16 describe preventive and promotive care, 6 recommendations about care for complications and 3 for family involvement and support, as well as one statement of good practice.

[WHO Guidelines on Mental Health at Work]. / WHO-Leitlinie zur psychischen Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz.

The World Health Organization (WHO) published the "Guidelines on mental health at work" in September 2022. WHO developed the guidelines in accordance with WHO standards. The summary of this guideline was translated into German by the team of the WHO Collaborating Center for Evidence-based Medicine at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria) for use in German-speaking countries. An estimated 15+% of working-age adults have had some mental disorder at some point of time in their lives. This can lead to impaired capacity to work, resulting in reduction in productivity and performance, and ability to work safely, or in difficulties in retaining their jobs or obtaining gainful employment. The guidelines contain 12 recommendations. These provide evidence-based global public health guidance on organizational interventions, manager and worker training, and individual interventions for the promotion of positive mental health and prevention of mental health conditions, as well as recommendations on returning to work following absence associated with mental health conditions and gaining employment for people living with mental health conditions. Through the provision of these WHO recommendations, it is anticipated that the guidelines will facilitate national and workplace-level actions in the areas of policy development, service planning and delivery in the domains of mental and occupational health.

[Prevention of Mother-To-Child Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus: Guidelines on Antiviral Prophylaxis in Pregnancy]. / Prävention der Mutter-zu-Kind-Übertragung des Hepatitis-B-Virus: Leitlinie zur antiviralen Prophylaxe während der Schwangerschaft.

BACKGROUND: Most HBV-associated deaths among adults are secondary to infections acquired at birth or in the first five years of life. AIM: To extend the guideline for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of the hepatitis B virus to include antiviral prophylaxis. METHODS: The guideline was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in accordance with WHO standards. The summary was translated into German by employees of the WHO Collaborating Centre at Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS: In addition to the recommendation to test pregnant women for heptatitis B virus (HBV) and vaccinate newborns against hepatitis B as soon as possible after birth, two new recommendations have been formulated: pregnant women testing positive for HBV infection should receive tenofovir prophylaxis to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HBV. WHO recommends that in settings in which antenatal HBV DNA testing is not available, HBeAg testing can be used as an alternative to determine eligibility for tenofovir prophylaxis.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Surgical or radiological treatment for varicoceles in subfertile men.

BACKGROUND: Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I2 statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I2 = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted.

Second-generation antidepressants for treatment of seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, or psychotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs, or psychotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2011. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (all years), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2011 to January 2020), together with the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all available years), for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We hand searched the reference lists of all included studies and other systematic reviews. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished/ongoing trials. We ran a separate update search for reports of adverse events in the Ovid databases.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy we included RCTs of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse events we also included non-randomised studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were conducted individually. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar, and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified no new RCT on the effectiveness of SGAs in SAD patients. We included 2 additional single-arm observational studies that reported on adverse events of SGAs.  For efficacy we included three RCTs of between five and eight weeks' duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse events we included two RCTs and five observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks' duration with a total of 249 participants. All participants met the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age ranged from 34 to 42 years, and the majority of participants were female (66% to 100%). Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine (20/36) was numerically superior to placebo (11/32) in achieving clinical response; however, the confidence interval (CI) included both a potential benefit as well as no benefit of fluoxetine (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.83, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials involving a total of 136 participants compared fluoxetine versus light therapy. Meta-analysis showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24, low-certainty evidence), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any eligible study comparing SGA with another SGA or with psychotherapy. Two RCTs and five non-randomised studies reported adverse event data on a total of 249 participants who received bupropion, fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, nefazodone, reboxetine, light therapy, or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse events, therefore caution is advised regarding interpretation of this information. Between 0% and 100% of participants who received an SGA suffered an adverse event, and between 0% and 25% of participants withdrew from the study due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo showing a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy suggesting equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precluded us from drawing any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further, larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs. Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. The data we obtained on adverse events is therefore not robust, and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 25% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the study early due to adverse events.

[WHO Guideline: Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior and Sleep for Children under 5 Years of Age]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Körperliche Aktivität, Bewegungsmangel und Schlaf für Kinder unter 5 Jahren.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood is a time during which a child's habits are formed and family lifestyle habits are open to changes and adaptations. OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides recommendations on the amount of time during the 24 hours of a day that young children, under 5 years of age, should spend being physically active or sleeping for their health and wellbeing. METHOD: The guideline was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in accordance with WHO standards. The summary was translated into German by employees of the WHO Collaborating Center at Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A day consists of sleep time, sedentary time and physical activity of light, moderate or vigorous intensity. Young children should have opportunities to participate in a range of developmentally appropriate, safe, enjoyable play-based physical activities.

[Rapid Reviews in the Time of COVID-19 - Experiences of the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19 and Proposal for a Standardized Procedure]. / Rapid Reviews in Zeiten von COVID-19 ­ Erfahrungen im Zuge des Kompetenznetzes Public Health zu COVID-19 und Vorschlag eines standardisierten Vorgehens.

AIMS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many health-related questions require rapid answers. In the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19, founded by representatives of several scientific societies in March 2020, rapid reviews are often conducted to generate evidence-based answers that are useful for policy makers. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the practical experience with rapid reviews in the context of the Competence Network Public Health. Methods for high-quality and practicable implementation of rapid reviews were developed, which are particularly helpful for rapid evidence generation based on observational studies. METHODS: Using the 8-step approach proposed by Tricco et al. [1], we describe the acute challenges that have arisen in the Public Health Competence Network COVID-19 while conducting rapid reviews on public health-related issues related to the COVID-19-pandemic. The 8 steps are: 1. conceptualization of the research question, 2. literature search, 3. title/abstract and full text screening, 4. data extraction, 5. risk of bias assessment, 6. evidence synthesis, 7. dissemination, 8. update. We develop a methodological approach for conducting rapid reviews by expert consensus of the members (n=42 as of 01/28/2021) of the Rapid Reviews Working Group in the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19. RESULTS: A standardized approach is presented that closely follows the approach of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and takes into account the special requirements of etiological - but often also ecological - observational studies on COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed approach for conducting rapid reviews can form an important basis for evidence-based policy advice - certainly beyond questions related to COVID-19. Flexible and rapid funding concepts should be made available for the short-term realization of methodologically high-quality rapid reviews on emerging questions. Scientific cooperation in conducting rapid reviews needs to be expanded, and more methodologically high-quality approaches such as prospective meta-analyses should be used.

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. METHODS: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. RESULTS: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

Household interventions for secondary prevention of domestic lead exposure in children.

BACKGROUND: Lead exposure is a serious health hazard, especially for children. It is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children. There are many potential sources of lead in the environment, therefore trials have tested many household interventions to prevent or reduce lead exposure. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of household interventions intended to prevent or reduce further lead exposure in children on improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2020, we updated our searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched Google Scholar, checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to identify unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (three new to this update), involving 3282 children: 16 RCTs (involving 3204 children) and one quasi-RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Fifteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, one in Australia and one in China. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in those studies reporting this information. The duration of the intervention ranged from three months to 24 months in 15 studies, while two studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow-up periods ranged from three months to eight years. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. The other 14 studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; for example, we considered two RCTs and one quasi-RCT at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs at high risk of attrition bias. National or international research grants or governments funded 15 studies, while the other two did not report their funding sources. Education interventions versus no intervention None of the included studies in this comparison assessed effects on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes, or adverse events. All studies reported data on blood lead level outcomes. Educational interventions showed there was probably no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.07; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 815 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data), or in reducing floor dust levels (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Environmental interventions versus no intervention Dust control: one study in this comparison reported data on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes, and on adverse events in children. The study showed numerically there may be better neurobehavioural outcomes in children of the intervention group. However, differences were small and the CI included both a beneficial and non-beneficial effect of the environmental intervention (e.g. mental development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II): MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.1 to 2.4; 1 study, 302 participants; low-certainty evidence). The same study did not observe any adverse events related to the intervention during the eight-year follow-up, but observed two children with adverse events in the control group (1 study, 355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 565 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data). We could not pool the data regarding floor dust levels, but studies reported that there may be no evidence of a difference between the groups (very low-certainty evidence). Soil abatement: the two studies assessing this environmental intervention only reported on the outcome of 'blood lead level'. One study showed a small effect on blood lead level reduction, while the other study showed no effect. Therefore, we deem the current evidence insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement (very low-certainty evidence). Combination of educational and environmental interventions versus standard education Studies in this comparison only reported on blood lead levels and dust lead levels. We could not pool the studies in a meta-analysis due to substantial differences between the studies. Since the studies reported inconsistent results, the evidence is currently insufficient to clarify whether a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels and floor dust levels (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, household educational interventions and environmental interventions (namely dust control measures) show no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. The evidence of the effects of environmental interventions on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes and adverse events is uncertain too. Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for reducing or even preventing further lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low- and middle-income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high-income countries.

Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors.

Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease that has been classified a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a rapid review to assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high transmission of the disease. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 12 February 2020 and updated the search on 12 March 2020. WHO provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases up to 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies, case-control-studies, case series, time series, interrupted time series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened 30% of records; a single review author screened the remaining 70%. Two review authors screened all potentially relevant full-text publications independently. One review author extracted data and assessed evidence quality with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and resource use. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies; 10 modelling studies on COVID-19, four observational studies and 15 modelling studies on SARS and MERS. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis. Due to the type of evidence found for this review, GRADE rates the certainty of the evidence as low to very low. Modeling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases averted 44% to 81% incident cases and 31% to 63% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 4 modelling studies on COVID-19, SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, SARS, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings (2 modelling studies on SARS). Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths was small (2 modelling studies on SARS). When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, including school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than individual measures alone (incident cases: 4 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19; low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence for COVID-19 is limited to modelling studies that make parameter assumptions based on the current, fragmented knowledge. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak situation and the impact of the measures implemented. Testing in representative samples in different settings could help assess the true prevalence of infection, and would reduce uncertainty of modelling assumptions. This review was commissioned by WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems.

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. METHODS: We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. RESULTS: Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. PROTOCOL AVAILABILITY: The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7.

[WHO Guideline: Counselling of women to Improve Breastfeeding Practices]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Beratung von Müttern zur Verbesserung von Stillpraktiken.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding is one of the foundations of child health, development, and survival. Despite extensive evidence that lack of breastfeeding is associated with higher mortality rates and other long-term negative health outcomes, less than half of all babies under the age of 6 months are breastfed worldwide. Breastfeeding counselling is one of the key interventions, to improve breastfeeding rates. AIM: The objective of this guideline is to give recommendations on how to implement breastfeeding counselling to improve breastfeeding practices. METHODS: This guideline was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) according to the methods outlined in the WHO handbook for guideline development. This publication is a summary of the most important aspects of this guideline translated into German by members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: This guideline is based on current evidence and gives recommendations and makes comments on the implementation of breastfeeding counselling, such as frequency, timing, or mode and provider of breastfeeding counselling to improve breastfeeding practices. The scope of the guideline is limited to this intervention.

[WHO Guidelines on Tuberculosis Infection Prevention and Control]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Prävention und Kontrolle von Tuberkulose-Infektionen.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable progress in the fight against tuberculosis, it is still the most deadly bacterial infectious disease worldwide. Every year, up to 10 million people worldwide still die of tuberculosis. The World Health Assembly has set itself the goal of reducing the number of tuberculosis deaths by 90% and the number of new infections by 80% by 2030. Prevention and infection control measures in public health facilities and wherever the risk of transmission of the tuberculosis bacterium "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" is high are especially important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the guideline is to provide updated and evidence-based recommendations for public health measures to prevent the spread of the tuberculosis bacterium in clinical settings and in tuberculosis management. METHODOLOGY: The World Health Organization (WHO) developed these recommendations according to the methods outlined in the WHO handbook for guideline development. This publication is a summary of the most important aspects of this guideline translated into German by members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS: This guideline takes into account the current evidence base and provides recommendations and comments on the implementation of tuberculosis prevention and control measures at the level of health care institutions and at the national level.

[Quarantine Alone or in Combination with Other Public Health Measures to Control COVID-19: A Rapid Review (Review)]. / Quarantäne alleine oder in Kombination mit weiteren Public-Health-Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der COVID-19 Pandemie: Ein Cochrane Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is a new, rapidly emerging zoonotic infectious disease, that was reported to the World Health Organization for the first time on 31 December 2019. Currently, no effective pharmacological interventions or vaccines are available to treat or prevent COVID-19, therefore nonpharmacological public health measures are more in focus. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the effects of quarantine - alone or in combination with other measures - during coronavirus outbreaks. METHODS: Because of the current COVID-19 pandemic, WHO commissioned a rapid review. To save time, the method of systematic reviews was slightly and with caution modified. This publication is a summary of the most important aspects of the rapid review, translated into German by members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS: Overall, 29 studies were included. Ten modeling studies focused on COVID-19, 4 observational studies and 15 modeling studies focused on SARS and MERS. The modeling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures. For example, the models estimated that quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 prevented between 44 and 81% of the cases that would otherwise have happened and 31 to 63% of the deaths, when compared to no such measures. In regard to costs, the earlier the quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings will be. CONCLUSION: Our confidence in the evidence is very limited. This is mainly because the COVID-19 studies based their models on the limited data that have been available in the early weeks of the pandemic and made different assumptions about the virus. The studies of SARS and MERS are not completely generalizable to COVID-19. Despite only having limited evidence, all the studies found quarantine to be important for controlling the spread of severe coronavirus diseases. Looking to the coming months, in order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must continue to constantly monitor the outbreak situation and the impact of the measures they implement.

Second-generation antidepressants for preventing seasonal affective disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared a SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus placebo or the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi2 statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I2 statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots.We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE Working Group. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 3619 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall, moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in people with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 50% and 60%, NNTBs are 5 (95% CI 4 to 7) and 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest, such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, three out of four people will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment, and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer a lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Light therapy for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery and form of light vary. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included RCT had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.The included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, white light and infrared light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38; 23 participants, very low-quality evidence). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but the CI was also too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 24 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28; 29 participants, very low-quality evidence). Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self-rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for people with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.