Search

Introdução: A apneia obstrutiva do sono (AOS) é o distúrbio respiratório do sono mais comum. O treino muscular respiratório tem surgido como uma intervenção promissora para a melhora dos sintomas e com boa adesão, porém muito ainda se tem discutido sobre sua efetividade e segurança. Objetivo: Avaliar a efetividade e segurança do TMR no tratamento de pacientes com AOS. Métodos: Para tanto, realizaremos uma revisão sistemática de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR). O protocolo do estudo foi registrado na Plataforma Prospero (CRD42018096980). Incluiremos indivíduos de idade superior ou igual a 18 anos, com diagnóstico de AOS, em uso ou não de pressão positiva nas vias aéreas. Excluiremos estudos com pacientes diagnosticados com lesão da medula espinhal ou doenças neuromusculares. As buscas serão realizadas nas bases de dados: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline) via Pubmed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase) via Elsevier, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) via Cochrane Library, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Lilacs) via Portal da Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde e Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), sem restrições de idioma ou ano de publicação. Avaliaremos o rigor metodológico dos estudos incluídos e a certeza da evidência dos principais desfechos da revisão sistemática utilizando a ferramenta Risco de Viés 2.0 da Cochrane e a abordagem Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), respectivamente. A seleção dos estudos, extração de dados, avaliação do viés dos estudos incluídos e avaliação da certeza da evidência serão realizados por dois pesquisadores independentes. Resultados esperados: Espera-se que os resultados desta revisão forneçam informações úteis para a tomada de decisão clínica, exponham lacunas de conhecimento, assim como forneçam um bom embasamento para futuros ECR de alta qualidade sobre o assunto.

Objective: To describe and critically appraise the economic evaluations of antineoplastic drugs submitted to the ANS during the process of updating its 2020’ list of procedures. Methods: Cross-sectional study of critical analysis of the economic evaluation studies included in the documentation submitted to the ANS with the aim of incorporating them into the list of procedures. The methodological quality assessment was carried out using the Methodology Checklist 6: Economic Evaluations Version 3.0 of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Results: Overall, 49 economic evaluations were included: 22 cost-effectiveness studies, 10 cost-utility studies, three cost-minimization studies and 14 mixed economic studies. Methodological quality was mostly considered as acceptable or low quality. Conclusion: Economic evaluation studies are fundamental in the decision-making process of incorporating technologies into supplementary health care. This critical appraisal suggests that the quality of the economic studies presented within the proposals to incorporate antineoplastics during the process of updating the ANS 2020 roll was limited. Methodological inconsistencies and lack of transparent reporting reduce the validity and applicability of findings for decision-making

Background Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) has shown promise to decrease fatigue. However, it has never been examined in primary Sjogren Syndrome (pSS). Objective To assess the effect of a tDCS protocol on fatigue in patients with pSS. Methods This is a parallel, double-blind pilot study (NCT04119128). Women aged 18–65 years, with pSS, on stable pharmacological therapy, with complaints of fatigue for at least three months, and with scores >5 on Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) were included. We randomized 36 participants to receive five consecutive or sham tDCS sessions, with an intensity of 2 mA, for 20 min/day. Results After five tDCS sessions, fatigue severity assessed by the FSS (primary outcome) demonstrated a mean group difference of −0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) −1.57, −0.13; effect size 0.80] favouring the active group. The active group presented significantly greater reductions in fatigue as measured by the EULAR Sjogren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index after five tDCS sessions [mean group difference: 1.40; 95%CI -2.33, −0.48; effect size 1.04]. Although there were no between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of sleep, mood and anxiety, within-group comparisons evidenced a small but significant difference in the active group for pain and sleep. There were no significant cortisol changes. All reported adverse events were mild and transitory. Conclusion tDCS seems to be safe and reduce fatigue in pSS. A differential effect on pain and sleep may underlie its effects. Further studies are needed to optimise tDCS treatment strategies in pSS.

Background COVID-19, SARS and MERS are diseases that present an important health burden worldwide. This situation demands resource allocation to the healthcare system, affecting especially middle- and low-income countries. Thus, identifying the main cost drivers is relevant to optimize patient care and resource allocation. Objective To systematically identify and summarize the current status of knowledge on direct medical hospitalization costs of SARS, MERS, or COVID-19 in Upper-Middle-Income Countries. Methods We conducted a systematic review across seven key databases (PubMed, EMBASE, BVS Portal, CINAHL, CRD library, MedRxiv and Research Square) from database inception to February 2021. Costs extracted were converted into 2021 International Dollars using the Purchasing Power Parity-adjusted. The assessment of quality was based on the protocol by the BMJ and CHEERS. PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020225757. Results No eligible study about SARS or MERS was recovered. For COVID-19, five studies presented cost analysis performed in Brazil, China, Iran, and Turkey. Regarding total direct medical costs, the lowest cost per patient at ward was observed in Turkey ($900.08), while the highest in Brazil ($5,093.38). At ICU, the lowest was in Turkey ($2,984.78), while the highest was in China ($52,432.87). Service care was the most expressive (58% to 88%) cost driver of COVID-19 patients at ward. At ICU, there was no consensus between service care (54% to 87%) and treatment (72% to 81%) as key burdens of total cost. Conclusion Our findings elucidate the importance of COVID-19 on health-economic outcomes. The marked heterogeneity among studies leaded to substantially different results and made challenging the comparison of data to estimate pooled results for single countries or regions. Further studies concerning cost estimates from standardized analysis may provide clearer data for a more substantial analysis. This may help care providers and policy makers to organize care for patients in the most efficient way.

SUMMARY The aim of this rapid systematic review is to analyze the prevalence of clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics, laboratory and imaging findings, diagnostic tests, and treatment information of older adults with COVID-19. To conduct this systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook recommendations will be followed. Patients aged 60 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection will be included. A comprehensive literature search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Spanish Bibliographic Index on Health Sciences (IBECS) and Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform. No language restrictions will be applied. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies and the certainty of the evidence, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used. The meta-analysis will be performed using R software. We believe this rapid systematic review will be able to summarize the currently available evidence on clinical, socioeconomic characteristics, and management of COVID-19 in older adults. Therefore, it will help implement adequate strategies to fight the pandemic and assist in understanding the clinical profile of older patients with COVID-19, providing data with due scientific support upon which to base future choices of procedures and interventions. RESUMO O objetivo desta rápida revisão sistemática é analisar a prevalência de características clínicas, socioeconômicas e demográficas, achados laboratoriais e de imagem, testes de diagnóstico e informações de tratamento de idosos com COVID-19. Para conduzir esta revisão sistemática, serão seguidas as recomendações do Manual Cochrane. Pacientes com 60 anos ou mais com diagnóstico confirmado de infecção por Sars-CoV-2 serão incluídos. Uma pesquisa bibliográfica abrangente será realizada nas seguintes bases de dados: Medline via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Lilacs), Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol em Ciências da Saúde (Ibecs) e Epistemonikos Plataforma COVID-19 L · OVE. Nenhuma restrição de idioma será aplicada. Para avaliar a qualidade metodológica e a certeza das evidências dos estudos incluídos, serão utilizadas a Escala Newcastle-Ottawa e a abordagem Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (Grade). A meta-análise será realizada no software R. Acreditamos que esta revisão sistemática rápida será capaz de resumir as evidências atualmente disponíveis sobre as características clínicas, socioeconômicas e sobre o manejo de idosos com COVID-19. Portanto, ajudará a implementar estratégias adequadas para combater a pandemia e ajudará a entender o perfil clínico de pacientes idosos com COVID-19, fornecendo dados com o devido apoio científico sobre o qual basear futuras escolhas de procedimentos e intervenções.

Background Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to increased severity of numerous viral infections. Objective To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is safe and effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and LOVE for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published up to March 2nd evaluating the effects of vitamin D for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Two authors selected studies and analyzed the data evidence following Cochrane Recommendations. Results We included three RCTs with a total of 285 participants. We found low certainty-evidence indicating that hospitalized patients under calcifediol plus standard care (SC) treatment seem to present a significantly lower risk of being admitted to ICU, but no difference on mortality. We found low to very low certainty-evidence that the improvement in fibrinogen levels is slightly greater in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 that used cholecalciferol plus SC than in those treated with placebo plus SC [Mean difference, and the patients that used cholecalciferol plus SC achieved more SARS-CoV-2 negativity, but not on d-dimer, c-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin when compared with the patients in the placebo plus SC group. We also found low to moderate certainty-evidence that a single high dose of vitamin D does not seem to be effective for reducing mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admissions, and d-dimer or CRP levels when used in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Conclusions As a practical implication, the use of vitamin D associated with SC seems to provide some benefit to patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence is currently insufficient to support the routine use of vitamin D for the management of COVID-19, as its effectiveness seems to depend on the dosage, on the baseline vitamin D levels, and on the degree of COVID-19 severity.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy of digital health technology (DHT) for delivering and monitoring exercise programs, increasing adherence to exercise regimens and improving key clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF).

Objective To describe the laboratory parameters and biomarkers of the cytokine storm syndrome associated with severe and fatal COVID-19 cases. Methods A search with standardized descriptors and synonyms was performed on November 28th, 2020 of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, and IBECS to identify studies of interest. Grey literature searches and snowballing techniques were additionally utilized to identify yet-unpublished works and related citations. Two review authors independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, selected eligible studies for inclusion, extracted data from the included studies, and then assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Eligible studies were those including laboratory parameters—including serum interleukin-6 levels—from mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 cases. Laboratory parameters, such as interleukin-6, ferritin, hematology, C-Reactive Protein, procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine, and D-dimer, were extracted from the studies. Meta-analyses were conducted using the laboratory data to estimate mean differences with associated 95% confidence intervals. Data synthesis The database search yielded 9,620 records; 40 studies (containing a total of 9,542 patients) were included in the final analysis. Twenty-one studies (n = 4,313) assessed laboratory data related to severe COVID-19 cases, eighteen studies (n = 4,681) assessed predictors for fatal COVID-19 cases and one study (n = 548) assessed laboratory biomarkers related to severe and fatal COVID-19 cases. Lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated levels of interleukin-6, ferritin, D-dimer, aspartate aminotransferase, C-Reactive-Protein, procalcitonin, creatinine, neutrophils and leucocytes were associated with severe and fatal COVID-19 cases. Conclusions This review points to interleukin-6, ferritin, leukocytes, neutrophils, lymphocytes, platelets, C-Reactive Protein, procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine, and D-dimer as important biomarkers of cytokine storm syndrome. Elevated levels of interleukin-6 and hyperferritinemia should be considered as red flags of systemic inflammation and poor prognosis in COVID-19.

Objective: To synthesize the available data on the economic burden of Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Influenza-Like Illness (ILI), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)-related Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI), and Parainfluenza Virus type III (PIV3)-related ARI in Upper-Middle-Income Countries (UMIC), highlighting its major causes and comparing direct costs among nations. Study design: Systematic review, following the recommendations proposed in the Cochrane Handbook, but with some adaptations from previous economic studies. Review question: Is there any economic cost of viral ARI in UMIC? Types of studies to be included: Partial economic evaluation, such as Cost-of-Illness (COI) studies and burden of illness/diseases, database analysis, observational reports (cross-sectional studies, and prospective and retrospective cohort), and economic modelling studies that discuss one of the viral ARI in UMIC. No year of publication filter or language limit will be applied. Search databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, EconLit, CRD Library, MedRxiv, and Research Square. Moreover, hand searches of the bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews identified during the screening process will be undertaken to identify any additional relevant study for inclusion in our review. Synthesis of results: Qualitative analysis. We will focus on the overall economic burden of the diseases on health systems and population; total direct cost; the contribution of different cost components to the economic burden (e.g. pharmacological therapy, hospitalization); comparative assessments of costs analysis across geographical location and time horizon; and current research gaps. Moreover, we intend to identify, when presented, prevalence and incidence rates of each disease. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020225757.

To synthesize findings of economic evaluations investigating cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and of strategies of organization of care related to CPAP therapy. Scoping review with searches conducted in MEDLINE, CRD, LILACS, and Embase in August 2020. Eligible studies were economic evaluations comparing CPAP to other alternative or assessing strategies of care for CPAP therapy. Results were presented narratively, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were presented in evidence maps. Of 34 studies, 3 concluded that CPAP is less costly and more effective when compared to usual care. Most studies indicated that CPAP is associated with better health outcomes, but at higher prices. ICER ranged from USD 316 to 98,793 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained (median 16,499; IQR 8267 to 33,119). One study concluded that CPAP is more costly and less effective, when treatment is applied to all patients, regardless of disease severity. Variability of ICER was mainly due to definition of population and applied time horizons. When CPAP was compared to mandibular advancement device, ICER ranged from USD 21,153 to 361,028 (median 89,671; IQR 26,829 to 295,983), which represents the investment in CPAP therapy required to obtain one extra QALY. Three studies assessed the effects of organizing CPAP therapy in primary care, which was cost-effective or cost-saving. Compared to usual care, CPAP is cost-effective after the second year of treatment, when indicated for moderate-to-severe OSA. CPAP therapy may be even more cost-effective by using different strategies of organization of care. These findings may inform decision making related to CPAP reimbursement in health systems. Not applicable

BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020183460

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVEDetermining prognostic factors in a context of health crises such as the COVID-19 scenario may provide the best possible care for patients and optimize the management and the resource utilization of the health system. Thus, we aim to systematically review the prognostic factors for different outcomes of patients with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review methodology following the recommendations proposed by the Cochrane Handbook. METHODS: We will include cohorts and case-control studies. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS-LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify studies. No language restrictions will be applied. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The current health crisis due to COVID-19 is forcing us to profoundly rethink our social organizations and practices in health. While there is no effective treatment for the virus, staying home and social isolation are the control measures recommended by health authorities. The aim of this study is to perform a scoping review in order to summarize the current evidence in telehealth for COVID-19. METHODS: This study is a protocol to describe the rationale, hypothesis and planned methods of our scoping review. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies, and/or case series that describe telehealth interventions applied or developed to respond to COVID-19. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, and Scopus. We will include studies performed since December 2019 with no language restrictions. We will use the Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to perform the critical appraisal of included studies. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged in China in December 2019 and rapidly spread. Although extraordinary efforts have been made on research regarding pharmacological interventions, none have proven effective. This is the protocol for a rapid living systematic review that aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: rapid living systematic review methodology with Network Meta-Analysis following the recommendations of Cochrane Handbook. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs that evaluate single and/or combined pharmacological interventions at any dose for the treatment of COVID-19. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions will be used in the selection. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

To assess the effects of bilingualism compared to monolingualism on the clinical manifestation of Alzheimer’s Disease. Data from meta-analyses suggest that bilingual individuals exhibit Alzheimer’s Disease symptoms are diagnosed later than monolingual participants. Bilingualism may delay the manifestation of symptoms and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease. To assess the effects of bilingualism compared to monolingualism on the clinical manifestation of Alzheimer’s disease. We searched the databases: MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and LILACS, and searched by hand and in gray literature for studies published before September 2019. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Two reviewers independently searched for studies, extracted data, and performed the quality assessment. Eight studies were included in this review. Data from meta-analyses suggest that bilingual individuals with Alzheimer's disease exhibit symptoms (694 participants; mean difference (MD) (4.05 years; 95% CI: 1.87–6.22 and are diagnosed later (1012 participants; MD 2.0 years; 95% CI: 0.08–3.92) than monolingual participants. Bilingualism may delay the manifestation of symptoms and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Further studies with more rigorous methodology are needed to improve the precision of the results.

Background Fibromyalgia is a heterogeneous condition that appears to be associated with physiological and biochemical disturbances of pain modulation, and that consequently affects numerous other facets of life. Tramadol is currently being explored as an option to manage fibromyalgia pain and other symptoms because of its inhibitory activity of reuptake of neurotransmitters, but its safety and efficacy have not yet been established in these patients. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tramadol on the management of symptoms of the syndrome. Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Opengrey, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for randomised controlled trials analysing the association between tramadol used for fibromyalgia either single-agent or in combination with other drugs. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for all included studies. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results Four RCTs comprising 459 patients were included. Tramadol-either as a single-agent or in combination with an antidepressant or analgesic-had a positive effect on pain. Tramadol combined with analgesic showed improved quality of life over placebo as measured by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire at 91 days. However, this difference did not hold for tramadol as a single agent against placebo. The evidence in these articles was rated "low" using the GRADE approach. No serious adverse events were reported. No improvement in depression and quality of sleep were observed. Conclusions This systematic review found a dearth of clinical trials on tramadol in patients with fibromyalgia. Although the combination of monoamine and opioid mechanism of tramadol has shown positive effects for fibromyalgia, the available evidence is not sufficient to support or refute the use of tramadol in clinical practice for pain or symptom management. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017062139.

Objective Shoulder pain and dysfunction are highly prevalent after neck dissection in the treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC). They can lead to muscle weakness, limited range of motion, and shoulder tilt and pain, which can reduce patient functioning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for shoulder dysfunction in patients with surgically treated HNC. Methods A search of principal databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, IBECS, PEDro, and SciELO) was conducted, in addition to hand searches and a search of gray literature, for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published before February 2020. Two authors independently selected all relevant studies. The 7 RCTs fulfilling all inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool, respectively. Results Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that progressive resistance training is better than conventional treatment for improving pain and dysfunction in patients with HNC (pooled data from 214 participants; mean difference = −5.92; 95% CI = −11.38 to −0.45). Low-certainty evidence (data from 2 RCTs with 106 participants that could not be combined) suggests that acupuncture seems to be more effective than conventional treatment. Conclusions Progressive resistance training is effective for improving shoulder pain and dysfunction in patients with HNC. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to examine the effectiveness of acupuncture for improving shoulder pain and dysfunction in these patients. Future studies with longer follow-up times are needed to clarify the effects of early postoperative intervention. Impact Clinicians can have confidence that progressive resistance training in patients with surgically treated HNC is effective. Lay Summary These study results show that people with head and neck cancer can benefit from gradually increased resistance training to reduce shoulder pain and improve function. This study will help researchers design clinical trials to determine whether treatments such as acupuncture and early physical therapy also could be effective in treating this population.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has emerged as a tool for overcoming the challenges of healthcare systems and is likely to become increasingly viable, since information and communication technologies have become more sophisticated and user-friendly. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on telemedicine within healthcare and to summarize the current evidence regarding its use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of CSRs, developed at the Discipline of Emergency and Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: We searched for studies that compared use of telemedicine with conventional treatment or management of diseases within healthcare. Diagnostic telemedicine studies or studies using automatic text, voice-text or even self-managed care were excluded. The main characteristics and the certainty of evidence were synthetized and critically discussed by all authors. RESULTS: We included 10 CSRs that investigated a broad range of diseases. There is still insufficient evidence to determine what types of telemedicine interventions are effective, for which patients and in which settings, and whether such interventions can be used as a replacement for the standard treatment. Harm relating to telemedicine technologies needs to be better investigated and addressed. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine might be an excellent way to facilitate access to treatment, monitoring and dissemination of important clinical knowledge. However, given the recognition of systematic reviews as the best evidence resource available for decision-making, further randomized controlled trials with stricter methods are necessary to reduce the uncertainties in evidence-based use of telemedicine.

Background In Brazil, we are facing an alarming epidemic scenario of Yellow fever (YF), which is reaching the most populous areas of the country in unvaccinated people. Vaccination is the only effective tool to prevent YF. In special situations, such as patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (CIMID), undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, as a higher risk of severe adverse events may occur, assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) should be performed on an individual level. Main body of the abstract Faced with the scarcity of specific orientation on YFV for this special group of patients, the Brazilian Rheumatology Society (BRS) endorsed a project aiming the development of individualized YFV recommendations for patients with CIMID, guided by questions addressed by both medical professionals and patients, followed an internationally validated methodology (GIN-McMaster Guideline Development). Firstly, a systematic review was carried out and an expert panel formed to take part of the decision process, comprising BRS clinical practitioners, as well as individuals from the Brazilian Dermatology Society (BDS), Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group (GEDIIB), and specialists on infectious diseases and vaccination (from Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Immunizations National Societies); in addition, two representatives of patient groups were included as members of the panel. When the quality of the evidence was low or there was a lack of evidence to determine the recommendations, the decisions were based on the expert opinion panel and a Delphi approach was performed. A recommendation was accepted upon achieving ≥80% agreement among the panel, including the patient representatives. As a result, eight recommendations were developed regarding the safety of YFV in patients with CIMID, considering the immunosuppression degree conferred by the treatment used. It was not possible to establish recommendations on the effectiveness of YFV in these patients as there is no consistent evidence to support these recommendations. Conclusion This paper approaches a real need, assessed by clinicians and patient care groups, to address specific questions on the management of YFV in patients with CIMID living or traveling to YF endemic areas, involving specialists from many areas together with patients, and might have global applicability, contributing to and supporting vaccination practices. We recommended a shared decision-making approach on taking or not the YFV.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been the main cause behind chronic pain and disabilities in the elderly population. The traditional treatment for knee OA pain currently concerns a number of combinations of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies. However, such combinations have displayed little effects on a significant group of subjects. In addition to this, pharmacological treatments often cause adverse effects, which limits their use on this population. Previous studies showed that chronic knee OA pain may be associated with maladaptive compensatory plasticity in pain-related neural central circuits indexed by a defective descending pain-inhibitory system. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can revert some of these maladaptive changes, thus decreasing chronic pain sensation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the use of anodal tDCS stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1) has positive effects on chronic neuropathic pain. Yet, data on OA pain in elderly patients, including its effects on the endogenous pain-inhibitory system, remain limited. Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in reducing pain intensity caused by knee OA in elderly subjects with defective endogenous pain-inhibitory systems. Methods: We designed a randomized, sham-controlled, single-center, double-blinded clinical trial. Patients with knee OA who have maintained a chronic pain level during the previous 6 months and report a pain score of 4 or more on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain in that period will undergo a conditioned pain modulation (CPM) task. Participants who present a reduced CPM response, defined as a decrease in NRS during the CPM task of less than 10%, and meet all of the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to receive 15 sessions of 2 mA active or sham tDCS for 20 minutes. A sample size of 94 subjects was calculated. The Brief Pain Inventory pain items will be used to assess pain intensity as our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will include pain impact on functioning, mobility performance, quality of life, CPM, pressure pain threshold, touch-test sensory evaluation, and safety. Follow-up visits will be performed 2, 4, and 8 weeks following intervention. The data will be analyzed using the principle of intention-to-treat. Results: This study was approved by the institutional review board with the protocol number 1685/2016. The enrollment started in April 2018; at the time of publication of this protocol, 25 subjects have been enrolled. We estimate we will complete the enrollment process within 2 years. Conclusions: This clinical trial will provide relevant data to evaluate if anodal tDCS stimulation over M1 can decrease chronic knee OA pain in elderly subjects with defective CPM. In addition, this trial will advance the investigation of the role of central sensitization in knee OA and evaluate how tDCS stimulation may affect it. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03117231; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03117231 (Archived by WebCite at http://webcitation.org/73WM1LCdJ) International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/11660