Evidence mapping of clinical practice guidelines recommendations and quality for depression in children and adolescents.

This study systematically reviewed the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for depression in children and adolescents and assessed the quality and recommendation consistency of those CPGs. Evidence mapping was presented to illustrate the research trends and identify gaps to guide future research. Literature on CPGs for depression was systematically collected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, guideline databases, and psychiatric association/ society websites. The basic information, recommendations, methodological quality, and reporting quality of CPGs were extracted, and the supporting evidence strength for the included CPGs was analyzed in Excel. Four appraisers independently assessed the eligible CPGs using AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT checklist. All recommendations from the CPGs were summarized and analyzed, and the evidence mapping bubble charts were plotted in Excel. After excluding 15,184 records, 12 depression CPGs were eventually proved eligible, six of which were of high quality and six medium quality. A total of 39 major recommendations were summarized, 35 of which were supported by high-quality CPGs. Although direct comparisons are challenging due to differences in grading schemes and research quality, most CPGs share many pivotal recommendations that can help guide clinical practice. However, the evidence for some clinical problems is still lacking. Thus, more research is necessary on the screening and treatment of children and adolescents to put forward more evidence-based and high-quality recommendations.

Nervous system diseases are associated with the severity and mortality of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. Previous studies showed that comorbidities in patients with COVID-19 are risk factors for adverse outcomes. This study aimed to clarify the association between nervous system diseases and severity or mortality in patients with COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search of four electronic databases and included studies reporting the prevalence of nervous system diseases in COVID-19 patients with severe and non-severe disease or among survivors and non-survivors. The included studies were pooled into a meta-analysis to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). We included 69 studies involving 17 879 patients. The nervous system diseases were associated with COVID-19 severity (OR = 3.19, 95%CI: 2.37 to 4.30, P < 0.001) and mortality (OR = 3.75, 95%CI: 2.68 to 5.25, P < 0.001). Specifically, compared with the patients without cerebrovascular disease, patients with cerebrovascular disease infected with COVID-19 had a higher risk of severity (OR = 3.10, 95%CI: 2.21 to 4.36, P < 0.001) and mortality (OR = 3.45, 95% CI: 2.46 to 4.84, P < 0.001). Stroke was associated with severe COVID-19 disease (OR = 1.95, 95%CI: 1.11 to 3.42, P = 0.020). No significant differences were found for the prevalence of epilepsy (OR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.42 to 2.35, P = 0.994) and dementia (OR = 2.39, 95%CI: 0.55 to 10.48, P = 0.247) between non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant association between stroke (OR = 1.79, 95%CI: 0.76 to 4.23, P = 0.185), epilepsy (OR = 2.08, 95%CI: 0.08 to 50.91, P = 0.654) and COVID-19 mortality. In conclusion, nervous system diseases and cerebrovascular disease were associated with severity and mortality of patients with COVID-19. There might be confounding factors that influence the relationship between nervous system diseases and COVID-19 severity as well as mortality.

The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics and gynecology (OG) and examined the reports and designs of standards of OG COSs. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conduced on the COMET database on December 20, 2019 to identify systematic reviews on COSs. Two reviewers independently evaluated whether the reported OG COS met the reporting requirements as stipulated in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement checklist and the minimum design recommendations as outlined in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) checklist. RESULTS: Forty-four OG COSs related to 26 topics were identified. None of them met all the 25 standards of COS-STAR statement which representing 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting list for all COS studies (range: 6.0-24.0, median: 14.0). The compliance rates to 16 standards of methods and result sections ranged from 27.3%-68.2%. Total COS-STAR compliance items for OG COSs with the prior protocol was significantly higher than without prior protocol (MD = 3.846, 95% CI: 0.835-6.858, P = 0.012). None of the OG COSs met all the 12 criteria in the COS-STAD minimum standards (range: 3.0-11.0, median: 5.0). The compliance rates for all three standards of stakeholders involved and all four standards of the consensus process were lower than 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting standards of OG COSs should be improved.

Associating the risk of three urinary cancers with obesity and overweight: an overview with evidence mapping of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between cancer with overweight and obesity has been extensively reported. However, the association between urinary cancers with these risk factors remains unclear, with existing reports showing conflicting findings. The current review, therefore, sought to clarify the latter association by assessing the methodological and reporting quality of existing systematic reviews on the subject. METHODS: We first screened PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature and subjected the resulting articles to meta-analysis. We adopted the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists for assessing methodological and reporting quality, respectively, then performed meta-analyses to determine the relationship between incidence and mortality of three types of urinary cancers with obesity and overweight. Indirect comparisons were also done across subgroups. RESULTS: All systematic reviews (SRs) were of critically low methodological quality. Seventeen SRs had minimal reporting flaws, and 11 SRs had minor reporting flaws. We found an association between obesity with an incidence of kidney (RR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.47-1.92), bladder (RR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.07-1.13), and prostate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13) cancers. Similarly, overweight was associated with the incidence of the three types of cancer, recording RR values of 1.37 (95% CI 1.26-1.48), 1.07 (95% CI 1.03-1.1), and 1 (95% CI 0.93, 1.07) for kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers, respectively. With regard to the dose analysis, the RR of BMI (per 5 kg/m2 increase) was associated with kidney (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.2-1.28), bladder (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05), and prostate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01, 1.03) cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive quantitative analysis provides an affirmation that overweight and obesity are strong risk factors for kidney cancer, owing to a strong association between them. Conversely, a weak association between overweight and obesity with bladder and prostate cancers confirms their status as mild risk factors for the 2 types of cancer. But due to the low quality of included SRs, the results need to be interpreted with caution. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019119459.

Comparative efficacy and safety of different drugs for bipolar disorder complicated with anxiety disorder: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, there are some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effectiveness of drug therapy for bipolar disorder with anxiety disorders. However, due to lack of sufficient data, there are currently no good treatment recommendations. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of different drugs for bipolar disorder complicated with anxiety disorders to provide evidence to support clinical practice and guidelines development. METHODS: A systematic literature search will be performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to July 2020. RCTs that compared the efficacy and safety of different drugs for bipolar disorder complicated with anxiety disorders will be included. Two reviewers will independently search and select the studies, extract the data, and assess the risk of bias. We will assess the risk of bias of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The WinBUGS 1.4.3 software will be used to perform the network meta-analysis, and the result figures will be generated by STATA 15.0 software. In addition, we will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: This study will systematically compare the efficacy and safety of different drugs for bipolar disorder complicated with anxiety disorders. The results of this network meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSION: Our study will provide evidence for the drug therapy of patients with bipolar disorder complicated with anxiety disorders, and provide suggestions for clinical practice or guidelines. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202070132.

Prevalence of delirium, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder among COVID-19 patients: protocol for a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on the impact of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the mental health of the patients has been limited by the lack of relevant data. With the rapid and sustained growth of the publications on COVID-19 research, we will perform a living systematic review (LSR) to provide comprehensive and continuously updated data to explore the prevalence of delirium, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We will perform a comprehensive search of the following databases: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature to identify relevant studies. We will include peer-reviewed cross-sectional studies published in English and Chinese. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal tool and perform data extraction. In the absence of clinical heterogeneity, the prevalence estimates with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of delirium, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will be calculated by using random-effects model to minimize the effect of between-study heterogeneity separately. The literature searches will be updated every 3 months. We will perform meta-analysis if any new eligible studies or data are obtained. We will resubmit an updated review when there were relevant changes in the results, i.e., when outcomes became statistically significant (or not statistically significant anymore) or when heterogeneity became substantial (or not substantial anymore). DISCUSSION: This LSR will provide an in-depth and up-to-date summary of whether the common neuropsychiatric conditions observed in patients hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) are also prevalent in a different stage of COVID-19 patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196610.