Search

ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

ObjectivesDisasters, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, disrupt daily life, increase uncertainty and stress, and may increase long-term risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, including heart disease, obesity and diabetes. The objective was to conduct a systematic review to determine the impact of disasters, including pandemics, on cardiometabolic outcomes across the life-course.DesignA systematic search was conducted in May 2020 using two electronic databases, EMBASE and Medline. All studies were screened in duplicate at title and abstract, and full-text level. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed an association with population-level or community disaster and cardiometabolic outcomes. There were no restrictions on year of publication, country or population. Non-English and earthquake-related studies were excluded. Data were extracted on study characteristics, exposure (e.g., type of disaster, name of specific event, region, year), cardiometabolic outcomes, and measures of effect. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.ResultsA total of 58 studies were included, with 24 studies reporting the effects of exposure to disaster during pregnancy/childhood and 34 studies reporting the effects of exposure during adulthood. Studies included exposure to natural (60%) and human-made (40%) disasters, with only 3 (5%) of these studies evaluating previous pandemics. Most studies were conducted in North America (62%). Most studies reported increased cardiometabolic risk, including increased cardiovascular disease incidence or mortality, diabetes, and obesity. Few studies investigated potential mechanisms or identified high risk subgroups.ConclusionsUnderstanding the long-term consequences of disasters on cardiometabolic outcomes across the life-course may inform public health strategies for the current COVID-19 pandemic. This review found strong evidence of an increased association between disaster exposure and cardiometabolic outcomes across the life-course, although more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms and preventative efforts.PROSPERO registrationCRD – 42020186074Strengths and limitations of this studyThis systematic review is one of the first to review the literature on disasters, including pandemics, and subsequent cardiometabolic outcomes throughout the life-course.A comprehensive search strategy was developed in consultation with Health Science Librarians at McMaster University, which resulted in 58 studies that were eligible for inclusion into the review.Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted.This review contributes a synthesis of the literature on the impact of disasters and cardiometabolic outcomes, that can help to inform public health strategies for the current COVID-19 pandemic.

ObjectiveTo study characteristics and outcomes among patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) due to pulmonary aspiration.DesignA retrospective observational study based on data from the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (SRCR).SettingThe SRCR is a nationwide quality registry that covers 96% of all Swedish hospitals. Participating hospitals vary in size from secondary hospitals to university hospitals.ParticipantsThe study included patients registered in the SRCR in the period 2008 to 2017. We compared patients with IHCA caused by pulmonary aspiration (n=127), to those with IHCA caused by respiratory failure of other causes (n=2197).Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was 30-day survival. Secondary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) defined as ROSC at the scene and admitted alive to the intensive care unit.ResultsIn the aspiration group 80% of IHCA occurred on general wards, as compared with 63.6% in the respiratory failure group (pConclusionsIn-hospital cardiac arrest preceded by pulmonary aspiration occurred more often on general wards among unmonitored patients. These patients had a lower 30-day survival rate compared with IHCA caused by respiratory failure of other causes.

ObjectiveTo provide a framework for quantifying the robustness of treatment ranks based on Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) in network meta-analysis (NMA) and investigating potential factors associated with lack of robustness.MethodsWe propose the use of Cohen’s kappa to quantify the agreement between SUCRA-based treatment ranks estimated through NMA of a complete data set and a subset of it. We illustrate our approach using five published NMA data sets, where robustness was assessed by removing studies one at a time.ResultsOverall, SUCRA-based treatment ranks were robust to individual studies in the five data sets we considered. We observed more incidences of disagreement between ranks in the networks with larger numbers of treatments. Most treatments moved only one or two ranks up or down. The lowest quadratic weighted kappa estimate observed across all networks was in the network with the smallest number of treatments (4), where weighted kappa=40%. In the network with the largest number of treatments (12), the lowest observed quadratic weighted kappa=89%, reflecting a small shift in this network's treatment ranks overall. Preliminary observations suggest that a study’s size, the number of studies making a treatment comparison, and the agreement of a study’s estimated treatment effect(s) with those estimated by other studies making the same comparison(s) may explain the overall robustness of treatment ranks to studies.ConclusionsInvestigating robustness or sensitivity in an NMA may reveal outlying rank changes that are clinically or policy-relevant. Cohen’s kappa is a useful measure that permits investigation into study characteristics that may explain varying sensitivity to individual studies. However, this study presents a framework as a proof of concept and further investigation is required to identify potential factors associated with the robustness of treatment ranks using more extensive empirical evaluations.

ObjectivesTo investigate whether the conclusion of a recent systematic review and network meta-analysis (Ciprianiet al) that antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo for adult depression was supported by the evidence.DesignReanalysis of a systematic review, with meta-analyses.Data sources522 trials (116 477 participants) as reported in the systematic review by Ciprianiet aland clinical study reports for 19 of these trials.AnalysisWe used the Cochrane Handbook’s risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence, respectively. The impact of several study characteristics and publication status was estimated using pairwise subgroup meta-analyses.ResultsSeveral methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants were either unrecognised or underestimated in the systematic review by Ciprianiet al. The effect size for antidepressants versus placebo on investigator-rated depression symptom scales was higher in trials with a ‘placebo run-in’ study design compared with trials without a placebo run-in design (p=0.05). The effect size of antidepressants was higher in published trials compared with unpublished trials (pet aldiffered from the clinical study reports in 12 (63%) of 19 trials. The certainty of the evidence for the placebo-controlled comparisons should be very low according to GRADE due to a high risk of bias, indirectness of the evidence and publication bias. The mean difference between antidepressants and placebo on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (range 0–52 points) was 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21).ConclusionsThe evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the benefits of antidepressants for depression in adults. It is unclear whether antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo.

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of intradialytic exercise for haemodialysis patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesDatabases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, were screened from inception to March 2017.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of intradialytic exercise versus no exercise in adult patients on haemodialysis for at least 3 months. A minimum exercise programme period of 8 weeks.Data extractionStudy characteristics and study quality domains were reviewed. Studies were selected, and data extracted by two reviewers.Data analysisThe pooled risk ratios and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and continuous data were calculated, respectively.ResultsA total of 27 RCTs involving 1215 subjects were analysed. Compared with no exercise, intradialytic exercise increased dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12, p=0.02) and maximum volume of oxygen that the body can use during physical exertion peak oxygen consumption (MD 4.11, 95% CI 2.94 to 5.27, pConclusionsIntradialytic exercise resulted in benefits in terms of improving haemodialysis adequacy, exercise capacity, depression and quality of life for haemodialysis.

Introduction Non-typhoidal Salmonella is considered one of the leading causes of foodborne disease worldwide. This protocol provides methods that will be used to synthesise available epidemiological data on non-typhoidal enteric Salmonella in humans and food in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and to characterise the morbidity of human salmonellosis in this region. Methods and analysis A systematic review will be conducted based on the Cochrane Collaboration handbook and will be reported following the items outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We will search PubMed, Embase, CAB Direct and Global Health Library (WHO) databases in order to identify relevant reports. Additionally, the literature search will be supplemented by checking references of the included reports and the identified reviews. Furthermore, we will hand-search conference proceedings and Ministry of Health9s website of each country of the MENA region. We will use comprehensive search criteria with no time and no language restrictions. We will extract data on report and study characteristics, biological assay characteristics, individuals’ demographic characteristics and on primary and secondary outcomes of interest. If appropriate, meta-analysis will be conducted in order to estimate pooled prevalence measures using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. We will conduct meta-regression analysis to explore the effect of study-level characteristics as potential sources of heterogeneity. Ethics and dissemination The results of the systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. Trial registration number The trial registration number is CRD42016046360.