Search

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production., Objective: To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process., Methods: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively., Results: We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated., Conclusion: For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Rapid reviews have gained popularity as a pragmatic approach to synthesize evidence in a timely manner to inform decision-making in healthcare. This article provides an overview of the key concepts and methodological considerations in conducting rapid reviews, drawing from a series of recently published guidance papers by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group., Study Design and Setting: We discuss the definition, characteristics, and potential applications of rapid reviews and the trade-offs between speed and rigor. We present a practical example of a rapid review and highlight the methodological considerations outlined in the updated Cochrane guidance, including recommendations for literature searching, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, synthesis, and assessing the certainty of evidence., Results: Rapid reviews can be a valuable tool for evidence-based decision-making, but it is essential to understand their limitations and adhere to methodological standards to ensure their validity and reliability., Conclusion: As the demand for rapid evidence synthesis continues to grow, further research is needed to refine and standardize the methods and reporting of rapid reviews., Plain Language Summary: Rapid reviews are a type of research method designed to quickly gather and summarize evidence to support decision-making in healthcare. They are particularly useful when timely information is needed, such as during a public health emergency. This article explains the key aspects of how rapid reviews are conducted, based on the latest guidance from experts. Rapid reviews involve several steps, including searching for relevant studies, selecting which studies to include, and carefully examining the quality of the evidence. Although rapid reviews are faster to complete than full systematic reviews, they still follow rigorous processes to ensure that the findings are reliable. This article also provides an example of a rapid review in action, demonstrating how these reviews can be applied in real-world situations. While rapid reviews are a powerful tool for making quick, evidence-based decisions, it is important to be aware of their limitations. Researchers must follow established methods to make sure the results are as accurate and useful as possible. As more people use rapid reviews, ongoing research is needed to improve and standardize how they are done., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest D. D., C. H., G. G., B. N. S., and U. G. are co-convenors of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper guides how to use supportive software for RRs.We strongly encourage the use of supportive software throughout RR production. Specifically, we recommend (1) using collaborative online platforms that enable working in parallel, allow for real-time project management and centralise review details; (2) using automation software to support, but not entirely replace a human reviewer and human judgement and (3) being transparent in reporting the methodology and potential risk for bias due to the use of supportive software., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LA is an associate convenor of the RRMG. BNS, CH and GG are co-convenors of the RRMG., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD)., Purpose: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants., Data Sources: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research., Study Selection: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration., Data Extraction: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest., Data Synthesis: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously., Limitations: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence., Conclusion: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration., Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

Background: Developers of clinical practice guidelines need to take patient values and preferences into consideration when weighing benefits and harms of treatment options for depressive disorder., Purpose: To assess patient values and preferences regarding pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments of depressive disorder., Data Sources: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (EBSCO) were searched for eligible studies published from 1 January 2014 to 30 November 2022., Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently screened 30% of search results. The remaining 70% of the abstracts were screened by single reviewers; excluded abstracts were checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of reviewers independently screened full texts., Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence, and a second reviewer checked for completeness and accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias., Data Synthesis: The review included 11 studies: 4 randomized controlled trials, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 qualitative studies. In 1 randomized controlled trial, participants reported at the start of therapy that they expected supportive-expressive psychotherapy and antidepressants to yield similar improvements. A cross-sectional study reported that non-Hispanic White participants and men generally preferred antidepressants over talk therapy, whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants and women generally did not have a preference. Another cross-sectional study reported that the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants were insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction. For other comparisons and outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn because of the insufficient certainty of evidence., Limitations: The main limitation of this review is the low or insufficient certainty of evidence for most outcomes. No evidence was available on second-step depression treatment or differences in values and preferences based on gender, race/ethnicity, age, and depression severity., Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be some differences in preferences for talk therapy or pharmacologic treatment of depressive disorders based on gender or race/ethnicity. In addition, low-certainty evidence suggests that insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction may be the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants. Evidence is lacking or insufficient to draw any further conclusions about patients' weighing or valuation of the benefits and harms of depression treatments., Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020212442).

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect., Purpose: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD., Data Sources: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022)., Study Selection: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria., Data Extraction: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility., Data Synthesis: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions., Limitations: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available., Conclusion: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions., Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians.

Background: Due to the growing need to provide evidence syntheses under time constraints, researchers have begun focusing on the exploration of rapid review methods, which often employ single-reviewer literature screening. However, single-reviewer screening misses, on average, 13% of relevant studies, compared to 3% with dual-reviewer screening. Little guidance exists regarding methods to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Likewise, it is unclear whether specific study characteristics can predict an increased risk of false exclusion. This systematic review aimed to identify supplementary search methods that can be used to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Moreover, it strove to identify study-level predictors that indicate an elevated risk of false exclusions of studies during literature screening., Methods: We performed literature searches for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents Connect, Embase, Epistemonikos.org, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts from 1999 to June 23, 2020. We searched for gray literature, checked reference lists, and conducted hand searches in two relevant journals and similar article searches current to January 28, 2021. Two investigators independently screened the literature; one investigator performed the data extraction, and a second investigator checked for correctness and completeness. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies. We synthesized the results narratively., Results: Three method studies, two with a case-study design and one with a case-series design, met the inclusion criteria. One study reported that all falsely excluded publications (8%) could be recovered through reference list checking compared to other supplementary search methods. No included methods study analyzed the impact of recovered studies on conclusions or meta-analyses. Two studies reported that up to 8% of studies were falsely excluded due to uninformative titles and abstracts, and one study showed that 11% of non-English studies were falsely excluded., Conclusions: Due to the limited evidence based on two case studies and one case series, we can draw no firm conclusion about the most reliable and most valid method to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening or about the characteristics that might predict a higher risk of false exclusion., Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/v2pjr/., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of soil remediation to prevent or reduce lead exposure., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, the Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Web of Science, and Scopus from 1980 to February 15, 2021. We also performed reference list checking, hand-searched websites, and contacted experts. Eligible studies evaluated the effect of soil remediation to prevent or reduce lead exposure in humans of any age. We screened all records dually; one investigator performed the data extraction; a second checked for completeness and accuracy. Two investigators independently rated the risk of bias of included studies and graded the certainty of evidence. We synthesized findings narratively., Results: We identified 6614 potentially relevant publications, all focused on children, of which five studies (six records) fulfilled our prespecified inclusion criteria. The number of evaluated participants ranged from 31 to 1425, with follow-up periods of 11 months to one year. The primary soil remediation method was the replacement of the upper layer with clean soil. Outcomes were limited to blood lead levels (BLL), dust lead levels, and soil lead levels. The largest study, a controlled before- after study (n = 1425) reported favorable effects of soil remediation compared to no intervention. This finding was consistent with results from two cross-sectional studies and one uncontrolled before-after study. One year post-remediation, the mean reduction in BLL was 2.1 μg/dL (p < 0.0001) greater in the intervention group than in the control group. Two randomized controlled trials with a total of 511 participants showed no statistically significant incremental effect of soil remediation when combined with paint and/or dust abatement. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was low., Conclusion: Soil remediation appears to reduce BLL in children when used as a single intervention. The incremental benefit of soil remediation when part of other interventions is limited., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study evaluated a simple environmental intervention called 'Water Schools' in Lower Austria providing free refillable water bottles and educational material., Design: Non-randomised controlled cluster trial with three measurements: at baseline (T0), after the intervention at 9 months (T1) and after 1-year follow-up (T2)., Setting: Half-day elementary schools in Lower Austria (Austria)., Participants: Third-grade pupils from twenty-two schools in the intervention group (IG) and thirty-two schools in the control group (CG) participated in the study. Data were analysed for 569 to 598 pupils in the IG and for 545 to 613 in the CG, depending on the time of measurement., Results: The consumption of tap water increased in the IG from baseline to T1 and then decreased again at T2, but this was similar in the CG (no statistically significant difference in the time trend between the IG and CG). Similar results were seen for tap water consumption in the mornings. The proportion of children who only drank tap water on school mornings increased significantly from baseline to T1 in the IG compared to the CG (P = 0·020). No difference in the changes over time occurred between the groups for the proportion of pupils drinking approximately one bottle of tap water during school mornings., Conclusions: Not only the children in the IG but also those in the CG drank more tap water after 1 school year than at the beginning. The measurement of drinking habits in the CG may have been intervention enough to bring about changes or to initiate projects.

Background: Dyspnea is a common and often debilitating symptom with a complex diagnostic work-up., Purpose: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in patients with acute dyspnea. (PROSPERO: CRD42019126419)., Data Sources: Searches of multiple electronic databases without language limitations (January 2004 to August 2020) and reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews., Study Selection: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 44 prospective cohort-type studies in patients with acute dyspnea evaluated POCUS as a diagnostic tool to determine the underlying cause of dyspnea. Two investigators independently screened the literature for inclusion., Data Extraction: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second investigator; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias and determined certainty of evidence., Data Synthesis: Point-of-care ultrasonography, when added to a standard diagnostic pathway, led to statistically significantly more correct diagnoses in patients with dyspnea than the standard diagnostic pathway alone. In-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between patients who did or did not receive POCUS in addition to standard diagnostic tests. Finally, POCUS consistently improved the sensitivities of standard diagnostic pathways to detect congestive heart failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax; specificities increased in most but not all studies., Limitations: Most studies assessed diagnostic test accuracy, which has limited utility for clinical decision making. Studies rarely reported on the proportion of indeterminate sonography results, and no evidence is available on adverse health outcomes of false-positive or false-negative POCUS results., Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasonography can improve the correctness of diagnosis in patients with acute dyspnea., Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians.

Objectives: To develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority., Study Design and Setting: Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided., Results: Based on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted., Conclusion: The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a modified workflow that uses machine learning and crowdsourcing to identify studies for potential inclusion in a systematic review., Study Design and Setting: This was a substudy to a larger randomized study; the main study sought to assess the performance of single screening search results versus dual screening. This substudy assessed the performance in identifying relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for a published Cochrane review of a modified version of Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow which uses crowdsourcing and machine learning. We included participants who had signed up for the main study but who were not eligible to be randomized to the two main arms of that study. The records were put through the modified workflow where a machine learning classifier divided the data set into "Not RCTs" and "Possible RCTs." The records deemed "Possible RCTs" were then loaded into a task created on the Cochrane Crowd platform, and participants classified those records as either "Potentially relevant" or "Not relevant" to the review. Using a prespecified agreement algorithm, we calculated the performance of the crowd in correctly identifying the studies that were included in the review (sensitivity) and correctly rejecting those that were not included (specificity)., Results: The RCT machine learning classifier did not reject any of the included studies. In terms of the crowd, 112 participants were included in this substudy. Of these, 81 completed the training module and went on to screen records in the live task. Applying the Cochrane Crowd agreement algorithm, the crowd achieved 100% sensitivity and 80.71% specificity., Conclusions: Using a crowd to screen search results for systematic reviews can be an accurate method as long as the agreement algorithm in place is robust., Trial Registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3jyqt., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective is to identify studies that have assessed methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews (RRs) and mapping these to review conduct stages and Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidance., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), which were supplemented by grey literature searching. Methods were defined a priori in a published protocol., Results: Out of 1,873 records, 90 publications were divided into four RR categories: formal evaluation (n = 14), development, which included four subcategories (n = 65), comparison (n = 2), and applying reporting guidelines/critical appraisal tools (n = 3), and a systematic review surrogate category (n = 6). Four formal evaluation studies were composite evaluations, including more than one shortcut simultaneously. The remaining 10 studies evaluated viable (e.g., including English-only publications) and unviable (e.g., single-reviewer screening) shortcuts, covering five key dimensions and five 'other' (e.g., involving stakeholders) considerations while conducting a review. Because of complexities around shortcuts evaluated, only a cursory mapping to MECIR criteria was possible., Conclusion: Some methods shortcuts may be valid in the context of RRs, but limitations in the studies may limit their applicability. The results will serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies., Methods: We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews., Results: For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21)., Conclusions: Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

Objectives: To determine the accuracy of single-reviewer screening in correctly classifying abstracts as relevant or irrelevant for literature reviews., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a crowd-based, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Using the Cochrane Crowd platform, we randomly assigned eligible participants to 100 abstracts each of a pharmacological or a public health topic. After completing a training exercise, participants screened abstracts online based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated sensitivities and specificities of single- and dual-reviewer screening using two published systematic reviews as reference standards., Results: Two hundred and eighty participants made 24,942 screening decisions on 2,000 randomly selected abstracts from the reference standard reviews. On average, each abstract was screened 12 times. Overall, single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 86.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.6%-91.2%). By comparison, dual-reviewer abstract screening missed 3% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 97.5%; 95% CI, 95.1%-98.8%). The corresponding specificities were 79.2% (95% CI, 77.4%-80.9%) and 68.7% (95% CI, 66.4%-71.0%), respectively., Conclusions: Single-reviewer abstract screening does not appear to fulfill the high methodological standards that decisionmakers expect from systematic reviews. It may be a viable option for rapid reviews, which deliberately lower methodological standards to provide decision makers with accelerated evidence synthesis products., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Occupational injuries and diseases are a huge public health problem and cause extensive suffering and loss of productivity. Nevertheless, many occupational health and safety (OHS) guidelines are still not based on the best available evidence. In the last decade, numerous systematic reviews on behavioural, relational and mixed interventions to reduce occupational injuries and diseases have been carried out, but a comprehensive synopsis is yet missing. The aim of this overview of reviews is to provide a comprehensive basis to inform evidence-based decision-making about interventions in the field of OHS., Methods: We conducted an overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) for relevant systematic reviews published between January 2008 and June 2018. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews with the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool., Results: We screened 2287 abstracts and 200 full-texts for eligibility. Finally, we included 25 systematic reviews with a low risk of bias for data synthesis and analysis. We identified systematic reviews on the prevention of occupational injuries, musculoskeletal, skin and lung diseases, occupational hearing impairment and interventions without specific target diseases. Several interventions led to consistently positive results on individual diseases; other interventions did not show any effects, or the studies are contradictory. We provide detailed results on all included interventions., Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive overview of behavioural, relational and mixed interventions and their effectiveness in preventing occupational injuries and diseases. It provides policymakers with an important basis for making evidence-based decisions on interventions in this field., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018100341., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Web applications that employ natural language processing technologies to support systematic reviewers during abstract screening have become more common. The goal of our project was to conduct a case study to explore a screening approach that temporarily replaces a human screener with a semi-automated screening tool., Methods: We evaluated the accuracy of the approach using DistillerAI as a semi-automated screening tool. A published comparative effectiveness review served as the reference standard. Five teams of professional systematic reviewers screened the same 2472 abstracts in parallel. Each team trained DistillerAI with 300 randomly selected abstracts that the team screened dually. For all remaining abstracts, DistillerAI replaced one human screener and provided predictions about the relevance of records. A single reviewer also screened all remaining abstracts. A second human screener resolved conflicts between the single reviewer and DistillerAI. We compared the decisions of the machine-assisted approach, single-reviewer screening, and screening with DistillerAI alone against the reference standard., Results: The combined sensitivity of the machine-assisted screening approach across the five screening teams was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66 to 90%), and the combined specificity was 95% (95% CI, 92 to 97%). By comparison, the sensitivity of single-reviewer screening was similar (78%; 95% CI, 66 to 89%); however, the sensitivity of DistillerAI alone was substantially worse (14%; 95% CI, 0 to 31%) than that of the machine-assisted screening approach. Specificities for single-reviewer screening and DistillerAI were 94% (95% CI, 91 to 97%) and 98% (95% CI, 97 to 100%), respectively. Machine-assisted screening and single-reviewer screening had similar areas under the curve (0.87 and 0.86, respectively); by contrast, the area under the curve for DistillerAI alone was just slightly better than chance (0.56). The interrater agreement between human screeners and DistillerAI with a prevalence-adjusted kappa was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.86%)., Conclusions: The accuracy of DistillerAI is not yet adequate to replace a human screener temporarily during abstract screening for systematic reviews. Rapid reviews, which do not require detecting the totality of the relevant evidence, may find semi-automation tools to have greater utility than traditional systematic reviews.

The Austrian periodic health examination (PHE) was introduced in 1974 as a health insurance benefit and was redesigned for the last time in 2005. Therefore, the aim of this work was to revise the scientific basis of the PHE using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We updated the scientific evidence of examinations and consultations that are currently part of the PHE and searched and integrated new examinations. We assessed the expectations of the population towards the PHE in three focus groups. A panel of experts developed evidence-based recommendations for the revised PHE. They formulated 26 recommendations on 20 target diseases or risk factors. In comparison to the previous PHE, the panel added screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm, osteoporotic fracture risk, and chronic kidney disease to the recommendations, while screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, screening for iron deficiency/pernicious anaemia, and risk identification of glaucoma should no longer be included.

Aims: To assess the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention, compared with treatment as usual in people with prediabetes as defined by the American Diabetes Association. For older studies, we used the 1985 World Health Organization definition., Methods: We systematically searched multiple electronic databases and referenced lists of pertinent review articles from January 1980 through November 2015. We performed an update search in MEDLINE on April 26, 2017. Based on a priori established eligibility criteria, we dually reviewed the literature, extracted data, and rated the risk of bias of included studies with validated checklists. To assess the efficacy of lifestyle intervention to prevent or delay further progression to type 2 diabetes, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach., Result: Pooled results of 16 randomized controlled trials showed that people with prediabetes who received lifestyle intervention had a lower rate of progression to type 2 diabetes after one (4% vs. 10%, RR 0.46 [CI 0.32, 0.66]) and three years of follow-up (14% vs. 23%, RR 0.64 [95% CI 0.53, 0.77]). The majority of the studies also showed a greater weight loss in lifestyle intervention participants, with a great variation between studies. Costs per quality-adjusted life-year were lower when the benefits of lifestyle intervention were analyzed over a lifelong time horizon compared to only the period of lifestyle intervention (three years) or to modeling over a ten-year period., Conclusion: Lifestyle intervention is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective measure to reduce the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in people diagnosed with prediabetes. More research is necessary to compare the efficacy of various modes, frequencies, and intensities of lifestyle intervention across studies., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In healthcare, the processes, criteria, and evidence that decision makers use to reach their judgments often remain unclear. Decision makers sometimes neglect important criteria, give undue weight to criteria, or do not use the best available evidence to inform their judgments. Thus, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group developed a system to support transparent decision making. The purpose of the Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) framework is to help people use evidence in a structured and transparent way to inform decisions in the context of clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system, or public health recommendations and decisions. EtD frameworks include the formulation of the question, an assessment of the evidence, and drawing conclusions. EtD frameworks inform users of recommendations about judgments that were made and the evidence supporting these judgments by making the basis for decisions transparent to target audiences. EtD frameworks also facilitate dissemination of recommendations., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)