Values and preferences influencing willingness to change red and processed meat consumption in response to evidence-based information: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) to assess the extent to which omnivores are willing to stop or reduce their consumption of red and processed meat in response to evidence-based information regarding the possible reduction of cancer mortality and incidence achieved by dietary modification; (2) to identify sociodemographic categories associated with higher willingness to change meat consumption; (3) to understand the motives facilitating and hindering such a change. DESIGN: During an initial computer-assisted web interview, respondents were presented with scenarios containing the estimates of the absolute risk reduction in overall cancer incidence and mortality tailored to their declared level of red and processed meat consumption. Respondents were asked whether they would stop or reduce their average meat consumption based on the information provided. Their dietary choices were assessed at 6-month follow-up. Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews to better understand the rationale for dietary practices and the perception of health information. PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted among students and staff of 3 universities in Krakow, Poland. RESULTS: Most of the 513 respondents were unwilling to change their consumption habits. We found gender to be a significant predictor of the willingness. Finally, we identified 4 themes reflecting key motives that determined meat consumption preferences: the importance of taste and texture, health consciousness, the habitual nature of cooking, and persistence of omnivorous habits. CONCLUSIONS: When faced with health information about the uncertain reduction in the risk of cancer mortality and incidence, the vast majority of study participants were unwilling to introduce changes in their consumption habits.

Citicoline for treating people with acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-lasting disability and mortality and its global burden has increased in the past two decades. Several therapies have been proposed for the recovery from, and treatment of, ischemic stroke. One of them is citicoline. This review assessed the benefits and harms of citicoline for treating patients with acute ischemic stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of citicoline compared with placebo or any other control for treating people with acute ischemic stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched in the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS until 29 January 2020. We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we also reviewed reference lists of the retrieved publications and review articles, and searched the websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any setting including participants with acute ischemic stroke. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared citicoline versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected RCTs, assessed the risk of bias in seven domains, and extracted data by duplicate. Our primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and the degree of disability or dependence in daily activities at 90 days. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We conducted our analyses using the fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for six pre-specified outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs including 4281 participants. In all these trials, citicoline was given either orally, intravenously, or a combination of both compared with placebo or standard care therapy. Citicoline doses ranged between 500 mg and 2000 mg per day. We assessed all the included trials as having high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored six trials. A pooled analysis of eight trials indicates there may be little or no difference in all-cause mortality comparing citicoline with placebo (17.3% versus 18.5%; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). Four trials found no difference in the proportion of patients with disability or dependence in daily activities according to the Rankin scale comparing citicoline with placebo (21.72% versus 19.23%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.26; I² = 1%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). Meta-analysis of three trials indicates there may be little or no difference in serious cardiovascular adverse events comparing citicoline with placebo (8.83% versus 7.77%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). Overall, either serious or non-serious adverse events - central nervous system, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, etc. - were poorly reported and harms may have been underestimated. Four trials assessing functional recovery with the Barthel Index at a cut-off point of 95 points or more did not find differences comparing citicoline with placebo (32.78% versus 30.70%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; I² = 24%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). There were no differences in neurological function (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at a cut-off point of ≤ 1 points) comparing citicoline with placebo according to five trials (24.31% versus 22.44%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 27%, low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). A pre-planned Trial Sequential Analysis suggested that no more trials may be needed for the primary outcomes but no trial provided information on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review assessed the clinical benefits and harms of citicoline compared with placebo or any other standard treatment for people with acute ischemic stroke. The findings of the review suggest there may be little to no difference between citicoline and its controls regarding all-cause mortality, disability or dependence in daily activities, severe adverse events, functional recovery and the assessment of the neurological function, based on low-certainty evidence. None of the included trials assessed quality of life and the safety profile of citicoline remains unknown. The available evidence is of low quality due to either limitations in the design or execution of the trials.

Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for All-Cause Mortality and Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Dietary guidelines generally recommend limiting intake of red and processed meat. However, the quality of evidence implicating red and processed meat in adverse health outcomes remains unclear. Purpose: To evaluate the association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction with diet among adults. Data Sources: EMBASE (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019, without language restrictions, as well as bibliographies of relevant articles. Study Selection: Cohort studies with at least 1000 participants that reported an association between unprocessed red or processed meat intake and outcomes of interest. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One investigator assessed certainty of evidence, and the senior investigator confirmed the assessments. Data Synthesis: Of 61 articles reporting on 55 cohorts with more than 4 million participants, none addressed quality of life or satisfaction with diet. Low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in unprocessed red meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small reduction in risk for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and type 2 diabetes. Likewise, low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in processed meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small decrease in risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, MI, and type 2 diabetes. Limitation: Inadequate adjustment for known confounders, residual confounding due to observational design, and recall bias associated with dietary measurement. Conclusion: The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

Health-Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Consumption: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: A person's meat consumption is often determined by their values and preferences. Purpose: To identify and evaluate evidence addressing health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences Abstracts, International System for Agricultural Science and Technology, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts were searched from inception to July 2018 without language restrictions. Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting adults' health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data Synthesis: Data were synthesized into narrative form, and summaries were tabulated and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Of 19 172 initial citations, 41 quantitative studies (38 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 5 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) and 13 qualitative studies (10 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 4 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported that omnivores enjoy eating meat, 18 reported that these persons consider meat an essential component of a healthy diet, and 7 reported that they believe they lack the skills needed to prepare satisfactory meals without meat. Omnivores are generally unwilling to change their meat consumption. The certainty of evidence was low for both "reasons for meat consumption" and "willingness to reduce meat consumption in the face of undesirable health effects." Limitation: Limited generalizability of findings to lower-income countries, low-certainty evidence for willingness to reduce meat consumption, and limited applicability to specific types of meat (red and processed meat). Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence suggests that omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42018088854).

Effect of Lower Versus Higher Red Meat Intake on Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Few randomized trials have evaluated the effect of reducing red meat intake on clinically important outcomes. Purpose: To summarize the effect of lower versus higher red meat intake on the incidence of cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes in adults. Data Sources: EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest from inception to July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception to April 2019, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Randomized trials (published in any language) comparing diets lower in red meat with diets higher in red meat that differed by a gradient of at least 1 serving per week for 6 months or more. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Data Synthesis: Of 12 eligible trials, a single trial enrolling 48 835 women provided the most credible, though still low-certainty, evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.03]), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.91 to 1.06]), and cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.94 to 1.05]). That trial also provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.89 to 1.01]) and the incidence of cancer, including colorectal cancer (HR, 1.04 [CI, 0.90 to 1.20]) and breast cancer (HR, 0.97 [0.90 to 1.04]). Limitations: There were few trials, most addressing only surrogate outcomes, with heterogeneous comparators and small gradients in red meat consumption between lower versus higher intake groups. Conclusion: Low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggests that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence. Primary Funding Source: None (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

Reduction of Red and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Mortality and Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Cancer incidence has continuously increased over the past few centuries and represents a major health burden worldwide. Purpose: To evaluate the possible causal relationship between intake of red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Data Sources: Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019 without language restrictions. Study Selection: Cohort studies that included more than 1000 adults and reported the association between consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias; 1 reviewer evaluated the certainty of evidence, which was confirmed or revised by the senior reviewer. Data Synthesis: Of 118 articles (56 cohorts) with more than 6 million participants, 73 articles were eligible for the dose-response meta-analyses, 30 addressed cancer mortality, and 80 reported cancer incidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that an intake reduction of 3 servings of unprocessed meat per week was associated with a very small reduction in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime. Evidence of low to very low certainty suggested that each intake reduction of 3 servings of processed meat per week was associated with very small decreases in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime; prostate cancer mortality; and incidence of esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancer. Limitation: Limited causal inferences due to residual confounding in observational studies, risk of bias due to limitations in diet assessment and adjustment for confounders, recall bias in dietary assessment, and insufficient data for planned subgroup analyses. Conclusion: The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Studying dietary patterns may provide insights into the potential effects of red and processed meat on health outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of dietary patterns, including different amounts of red or processed meat, on all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, and cancer incidence and mortality. Data Sources: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to April 2019 with no restrictions on year or language. Study Selection: Teams of 2 reviewers independently screened search results and included prospective cohort studies with 1000 or more participants that reported on the association between dietary patterns and health outcomes. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Data Synthesis: Eligible studies that followed patients for 2 to 34 years revealed low- to very-low-certainty evidence that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat intake result in very small or possibly small decreases in all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes. For all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of some types of cancer, the total sample included more than 400 000 patients; for other outcomes, total samples included 4000 to more than 300 000 patients. Limitation: Observational studies are prone to residual confounding, and these studies provide low- or very-low-certainty evidence according to the GRADE criteria. Conclusion: Low- or very-low-certainty evidence suggests that dietary patterns with less red and processed meat intake may result in very small reductions in adverse cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Description: Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people's values and preferences. A set of recommendations on red meat and processed meat consumption was developed on the basis of 5 de novo systematic reviews that considered all of these issues. Methods: The recommendations were developed by using the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) guideline development process, which includes rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods to rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome and to move from evidence to recommendations. A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations. Strict criteria limited the conflicts of interest among panel members. Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations. Four systematic reviews addressed the health effects associated with red meat and processed meat consumption, and 1 systematic review addressed people's health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Recommendations: The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017074074; PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018088854).

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.

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.

Improving quality and patient safety in surgical care through standardisation and harmonisation of perioperative care (SAFEST project): A research protocol for a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events in health care affect 8% to 12% of patients admitted to hospitals in the European Union (EU), with surgical adverse events being the most common types reported. AIM: SAFEST project aims to enhance perioperative care quality and patient safety by establishing and implementing widely supported evidence-based perioperative patient safety practices to reduce surgical adverse events. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed-methods hybrid type III implementation study supporting the development and adoption of evidence-based practices through a Quality Improvement Learning Collaborative (QILC) in co-creation with stakeholders. The project will be conducted in 10 hospitals and related healthcare facilities of 5 European countries. We will assess the level of adherence to the standardised practices, as well as surgical complications incidence, patient-reported outcomes, contextual factors influencing the implementation of the patient safety practices, and sustainability. The project will consist of six components: 1) Development of patient safety standardised practices in perioperative care; 2) Guided self-evaluation of the standardised practices; 3) Identification of priorities and actions plans; 4) Implementation of a QILC strategy; 5) Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness; 6) Patient empowerment for patient safety. Sustainability of the project will be ensured by systematic assessment of sustainability factors and business plans. Towards the end of the project, a call for participation will be launched to allow other hospitals to conduct the self-evaluation of the standardized practices. DISCUSSION: The SAFEST project will promote patient safety standardized practices in the continuum of care for adult patients undergoing surgery. This project will result in a broad implementation of evidence-based practices for perioperative care, spanning from the care provided before hospital admission to post-operative recovery at home or outpatient facilities. Different implementation challenges will be faced in the application of the evidence-based practices, which will be mitigated by developing context-specific implementation strategies. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and will be available in an online platform.

Recommendations on self-management interventions for adults living with obesity: COMPAR-EU project.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may improve disease management in adults living with obesity. We formulated evidence-based recommendations for SMIs within the context of the COMPAR-EU project. The multidisciplinary panel selected critical outcomes based on the COMPAR-EU core outcome set and established decision thresholds for each outcome. Recommendations were informed by systematic reviews of effects, cost-effectiveness, and a contextual assessment. To assess the certainty of the evidence and formulate the recommendations, we used the GRADE approach guidance. Overall, SMIs were deemed to have a small impact, but the absence of harmful effects and potential cumulative benefits indicated a favourable balance of effects, despite low certainty. SMIs showed variations in structure, intensity, and resource utilisation, but overall are likely to be cost-effective. Adapting SMIs to local contexts would enhance equity, acceptability, and feasibility, considering patients' values, and availability of resources and teamwork. Consequently, the panel made conditional recommendations favouring SMIs over usual care. The rigorous and explicit recommendations demonstrated the effectiveness of SMIs for adults living with obesity. However, the gaps in the literature influenced the panel to make only conditional recommendations in favour of SMIs. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base and improve recommendations' certainty and applicability.

COMPAR-EU Recommendations on Self-Management Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) offer a promising approach to actively engage patients in the management of their chronic diseases. Within the scope of the COMPAR-EU project, our goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the utilisation and implementation of SMIs in the care of adult individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A multidisciplinary panel of experts, utilising a core outcome set (COS), identified critical outcomes and established effect thresholds for each outcome. The panel formulated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, a transparent and rigorous framework for developing and presenting the best available evidence for the formulation of recommendations. All recommendations are based on systematic reviews (SR) of the effects and of values and preferences, a contextual analysis, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The COMPAR-EU panel is in favour of using SMIs rather than usual care (UC) alone (conditional, very low certainty of the evidence). Furthermore, the panel specifically is in favour of using ten selected SMIs, rather than UC alone (conditional, low certainty of the evidence), mostly encompassing education, self-monitoring, and behavioural techniques. The panel acknowledges that, for most SMIs, moderate resource requirements exist, and cost-effectiveness analyses do not distinctly favour either the SMI or UC. Additionally, it recognises that SMIs are likely to enhance equity, deeming them acceptable and feasible for implementation.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Heart Failure to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may enhance heart failure (HF) outcomes and address challenges associated with disease management. This study aims to review randomized evidence and identify knowledge gaps in SMIs for adult HF patients. Within the COMPAR-EU project, from 2010 to 2018, we conducted searches in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. We performed a descriptive analysis using predefined categories and developed an evidence map of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found 282 RCTs examining SMIs for HF patients, comparing two to four interventions, primarily targeting individual patients (97%) globally (34 countries, only 31% from an European country). These interventions involved support techniques such as information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), often through a mix of in-person and remote sessions (43%). Commonly assessed outcomes included quality of life, hospital admissions, mortality, exercise capacity, and self-efficacy. Few studies have focused on lower socio-economic or minority groups. Nurses (68%) and physicians (30%) were the primary providers, and most studies were at low risk of bias in generating a random sequence for participant allocation; however, the reporting was noticeably unclear of methods used to conceal the allocation process. Our analysis has revealed prevalent support techniques and delivery methods while highlighting methodological challenges. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers striving to optimize SMIs for individuals living with HF.

Saturated fat and human health: a protocol for a methodologically innovative systematic review and meta-analysis to inform public health nutrition guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The health effects of dietary fats are a controversial issue on which experts and authoritative organizations have often disagreed. Care providers, guideline developers, policy-makers, and researchers use systematic reviews to advise patients and members of the public on optimal dietary habits, and to formulate public health recommendations and policies. Existing reviews, however, have serious limitations that impede optimal dietary fat recommendations, such as a lack of focus on outcomes important to people, substantial risk of bias (RoB) issues, ignoring absolute estimates of effects together with comprehensive assessments of the certainty of the estimates for all outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We therefore propose a methodologically innovative systematic review using direct and indirect evidence on diet and food-based fats (i.e., reduction or replacement of saturated fat with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, or carbohydrates or protein) and the risk of important health outcomes. METHODS: We will collaborate with an experienced research librarian to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing saturated fat and our health outcomes of interest. In duplicate, we will screen, extract results from primary studies, assess their RoB, conduct de novo meta-analyses and/or network meta-analysis, assess the impact of missing outcome data on meta-analyses, present absolute effect estimates, and assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE contextualized approach. Our work will inform recommendations on saturated fat based on international standards for reporting systematic reviews and guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis will provide the most comprehensive and rigorous summary of the evidence addressing the relationship between saturated fat modification for people-important health outcomes. The evidence from this review will be used to inform public health nutrition guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42023387377 .

Self-management interventions for adults living with obesity to improve patient-relevant outcomes: An evidence map.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an evidence map on self-management interventions and patient-relevant outcomes for adults living with overweight/obesity. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley methodology, we searched in five electronical databases including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for overweight/obesity. We used the terms "self-management", "adult" and "obesity" for content. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 497 RCTs (58% US, 20% Europe) including 99,741 (median 112, range 11-5145) adults living with overweight/obesity. Most research evaluated clinical outcomes (617, 55%) and behaviors adherence (255, 23%). Empowerment skills, quality of life and satisfaction were less targeted (8%, 7%, 0.2%, respectively). The most frequent techniques included sharing information (858, 99%), goal setting (619, 72%) and self-monitoring training (614, 71%), provided face-to-face (386, 45%) or in combination with remote techniques (256, 30%). Emotional management, social support and shared-decision were less frequent (18%, 26%, 4%). Socio-economic status, minorities or health literacy were seldom reported. CONCLUSION: There is a need of widening the scope of research by focusing on outcomes important to patients, assessing emotional/social/share-decision support, exploring remote techniques and including vulnerable populations.

Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Type II Diabetes to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may be promising in the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (T2DM). However, accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness are challenging, partly due to a lack of clarity and detail regarding the intervention content being evaluated. This study summarizes intervention components and characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to T2DM using a taxonomy for SMIs as a framework and identifies components that are insufficiently incorporated into the design of the intervention or insufficiently reported. Following evidence mapping methodology, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO from 2010 to 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for T2DM. We used the terms 'self-management', 'adult' and 'T2DM' for content. For data extraction, we used an online platform based on the taxonomy for SMIs. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, and a second checked accuracy. We identified 665 RCTs for SMIs (34% US, 21% Europe) including 164,437 (median 123, range 10-14,559) adults with T2DM. SMIs highly differed in design and content, and characteristics such as mode of delivery, intensity, location and providers involved were poorly described. The majority of interventions aimed to improve clinical outcomes like HbA1c (83%), weight (53%), lipid profile (45%) or blood pressure (42%); 27% (also) targeted quality of life. Improved knowledge, health literacy, patient activation or satisfaction with care were hardly used as outcomes (<16%). SMIs most often used education (98%), self-monitoring (56%), goal-setting (48%) and skills training (42%) to improve outcomes. Management of emotions (17%) and shared decision-making (5%) were almost never mentioned. Although diabetes is highly prevalent in some minority groups, in only 13% of the SMIs, these groups were included. Our findings highlight the large heterogeneity that exists in the design of SMIs for T2DM and the way studies are reported, making accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness challenging. In addition, SMIs pay limited attention to outcomes other than clinical, despite the importance attached to these outcomes by patients. More standardized and streamlined research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SMIs of T2DM and benefit patient care.

The development of a core outcomes set for self-management interventions for patients living with obesity.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) can improve the life of patients living with obesity. However, there is variability in the outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of SMIs and these are often not relevant for patients. In the context of COMPAR-EU, our aim was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for the evaluation of SMIs for patients with obesity. We followed a four steps multimethod approach: (1) the development of the initial catalogue of outcomes; (2) a scoping review of reviews on patients' values and preferences on outcomes of self-management (SM); (3) a Delphi survey including patients and patient representatives to rate the importance of outcomes; and (4) a 2-day consensus workshop with patients, patient representatives, healthcare professionals and researchers. The initial catalogue included 82 outcomes. Ten patients and patient's representatives participated in the Delphi survey. We identified 16 themes through the thematic synthesis of the scoping review that informed 37.80% of the outcomes on initial catalogue. Five patients, five healthcare professionals, and four researchers participated in the consensus workshop. After the consensus process, 15 outcomes were selected to be part of the final COS, and five supplementary outcomes were also provided. We developed a COS for the evaluation of SMIs in obesity with a significant involvement of patients and other key stakeholders. This COS will help improving data synthesis and increasing the value of SM research data in healthcare decision making.