Search

Abstract Background Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. Methods Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database’s inception to March 2020. Outcome measures: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. Data synthesis: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. Results We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [− 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I 2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I 2 = 25%; St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MD − 2.12, 95% CI [− 3.72, − 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I 2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I 2 = 21%). Conclusions KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Abstract Background Evidence has shown that private industry-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are more likely to report intervention-favourable results compared with other sources of funding. However, this has not been assessed in network meta-analyses (NMAs). Objectives To (a) explore the recommendation rate of industry-sponsored NMAs on their company’s intervention, and (b) assess reporting in NMAs of pharmacologic interventions according to their funding type. Methods Design: Scoping review of published NMAs with RCTs. Information Sources: We used a pre-existing NMA database including 1,144 articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published between January 2013 and July 2018. Study Selection: NMAs with transparent funding information and comparing pharmacologic interventions with/without placebo. Synthesis: We captured whether NMAs recommended their own or another company’s intervention, classified NMAs according to their primary outcome findings (i.e., statistical significance and direction of effect), and according to the overall reported conclusion. We assessed reporting using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to NMA (PRISMA-NMA) 32-item checklist. We matched and compared industry with non-industry NMAs having the same research question, disease, primary outcome, and pharmacologic intervention against placebo/control. Results We retrieved 658 NMAs, which reported a median of 23 items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist (interquartile range [IQR]: 21–26). NMAs were categorized as 314 publicly-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 24.5, IQR 22–27), 208 non-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 23, IQR 20–25), and 136 industry/mixed-sponsored NMAs (PRISMA-NMA median 21, IQR 19–24). Most industry-sponsored NMAs recommended their own manufactured drug (92%), suggested a statistically significant positive treatment-effect for their drug (82%), and reported an overall positive conclusion (92%). Our matched NMAs (25 industry vs 25 non-industry) indicated that industry-sponsored NMAs had favourable conclusions more often (100% vs 80%) and were associated with larger (but not statistically significantly different) efficacy effect sizes (in 61% of NMAs) compared with non–industry-sponsored NMAs. Conclusions Differences in completeness of reporting and author characteristics were apparent among NMAs with different types of funding. Publicly-sponsored NMAs had the best reporting and published their findings in higher impact-factor journals. Knowledge users should be mindful of this potential funding bias in NMAs.

Abstract Background The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in

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

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may be promising in the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (T2DM). However, accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness are challenging, partly due to a lack of clarity and detail regarding the intervention content being evaluated. This study summarizes intervention components and characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to T2DM using a taxonomy for SMIs as a framework and identifies components that are insufficiently incorporated into the design of the intervention or insufficiently reported. Following evidence mapping methodology, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO from 2010 to 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for T2DM. We used the terms ‘self-management’, ‘adult’ and ‘T2DM’ for content. For data extraction, we used an online platform based on the taxonomy for SMIs. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, and a second checked accuracy. We identified 665 RCTs for SMIs (34% US, 21% Europe) including 164,437 (median 123, range 10–14,559) adults with T2DM. SMIs highly differed in design and content, and characteristics such as mode of delivery, intensity, location and providers involved were poorly described. The majority of interventions aimed to improve clinical outcomes like HbA1c (83%), weight (53%), lipid profile (45%) or blood pressure (42%); 27% (also) targeted quality of life. Improved knowledge, health literacy, patient activation or satisfaction with care were hardly used as outcomes (

Abstract Background The comparative safety and efficacy between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGFs) and between combined therapies for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine the comparative safety and efficacy anti-VEGFs for adults with nAMD. Methods Studies were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (inception to June 3, 2019), grey literature, and scanning reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened citations and full-text articles to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing moderate vision gain (≥ 15 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart) and the proportion of patients experiencing moderate vision loss (≤ 15 letters). Results After screening 3647 citations and 485 potentially relevant full-text articles, 92 RCTs with 24,717 patients were included. NMA (34 RCTs, 8809 patients, 12 treatments) showed small differences among anti-VEGFs in improving the proportion of patients with moderate vision gain, with the largest for conbercept versus broluczumab (OR 0.15, 95% CrI: 0.05–0.56), conbercept versus ranibizumab (OR 0.17, 95% CrI: 0.05–0.59), conbercept versus aflibercept (OR 0.19, 95% CrI: 0.06–0.65), and conbercept versus bevacizumab (OR 0.2, 95% CrI: 0.06–0.69). In NMA (36 RCTs, 9081 patients, 13 treatments) for the proportion of patients with moderate vision loss, small differences were observed among anti-VEGFs, with the largest being for conbercept versus aflibercept (OR 0.24, 95% CrI: 0–4.29), conbercept versus brolucizumab (OR 0.24, 95% CrI: 0–4.71), conbercept versus bevacizumab (OR 0.26, 95% CrI: 0–4.65), and conbercept versus ranibizumab (OR 0.27, 95% CrI: 0–4.67). Conclusion The only observed differences were that ranibizumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept, and brolucizumab were statistically superior to conbercept in terms of the proportion of patients with nAMD who experienced moderate vision gain. However, this finding is based on indirect evidence through one small trial comparing conbercept with placebo. This does not account for drug-specific differences when assessing anatomic and functional treatment efficacy in variable dosing regimens. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42015022041.

Abstract Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) has attracted growing interest in evidence-based medicine. Consistency between different sources of evidence is fundamental to the reliability of the NMA results. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of evidence of inconsistency and describe its association with different NMA characteristics. Methods We updated our collection of NMAs with articles published up to July 2018. We included networks with randomised clinical trials, at least four treatment nodes, at least one closed loop, a dichotomous primary outcome, and available arm-level data. We assessed consistency using the design-by-treatment interaction (DBT) model and testing all the inconsistency parameters globally through the Wald-type chi-squared test statistic. We estimated the prevalence of evidence of inconsistency and its association with different network characteristics (e.g., number of studies, interventions, intervention comparisons, loops). We evaluated the influence of the network characteristics on the DBT p-value via a multivariable regression analysis and the estimated Pearson correlation coefficients. We also evaluated heterogeneity in NMA (consistency) and DBT (inconsistency) random-effects models. Results We included 201 published NMAs. The p-value of the design-by-treatment interaction (DBT) model was lower than 0.05 in 14% of the networks and lower than 0.10 in 20% of the networks. Networks including many studies and comparing few interventions were more likely to have small DBT p-values (less than 0.10), which is probably because they yielded more precise estimates and power to detect differences between designs was higher. In the presence of inconsistency (DBT p-value lower than 0.10), the consistency model displayed higher heterogeneity than the DBT model. Conclusions Our findings show that inconsistency was more frequent than what would be expected by chance, suggesting that researchers should devote more resources to exploring how to mitigate inconsistency. The results of this study highlight the need to develop strategies to detect inconsistency (because of the relatively high prevalence of evidence of inconsistency in published networks), and particularly in cases where the existing tests have low power.

Objective To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).Design Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.Data extraction and synthesis We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.Results We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=−0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.48 to −0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=−0.25, 95% CI: –0.41 to −0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=−0.30, 95% CI: –0.50 to −0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).Conclusions Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.PROSPERO registration number CRD42015023511.

Abstract Background The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8–32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6–16%. Conclusions NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

Objective To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer’s dementia (AD).Design Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016.Participants 80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients.Interventions Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo.Data extraction and synthesis We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis).Primary and secondary outcomes We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events.Results Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective.Conclusions The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient’s characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs.PROSPERO registration number CRD42015023507.

Abstract Background Clinical interpretation of changes measured on a scale is dependent on knowing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for that scale: the threshold above which clinicians, patients, and researchers perceive an outcome difference. Until now, approaches to determining MCIDs were based upon individual studies or surveys of experts. However, the comparison of meta-analytic treatment effects to a MCID derived from a distribution of standard deviations (SDs) associated with all trial-specific outcomes in a meta-analysis could improve our clinical understanding of meta-analytic treatment effects. Methods We approximated MCIDs using a distribution-based approach that pooled SDs associated with baseline mean or mean change values for two scales (i.e. Mini-Mental State Exam [MMSE] and Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive Subscale [ADAS-Cog]), as reported in parallel randomized trials (RCTs) that were included in a systematic review of cognitive enhancing medications for dementia (i.e. cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine). We excluded RCTs that did not report baseline or mean change SD values. We derived MCIDs at 0.4 and 0.5 SDs of the pooled SD and compared our derived MCIDs to previously published MCIDs for the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. Results We showed that MCIDs derived from a distribution-based approach approximated published MCIDs for the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. For the MMSE (51 RCTs, 12,449 patients), we derived a MCID of 1.6 at 0.4 SDs and 2 at 0.5 SDs using baseline SDs and we derived a MCID of 1.4 at 0.4 SDs and 1.8 at 0.5 SDs using mean change SDs. For the ADAS-Cog (37 RCTs, 10,006 patients), we derived a MCID of 4 at 0.4 SDs and 5 at 0.5 SDs using baseline SDs and we derived a MCID of 2.6 at 0.4 SDs and 3.2 at 0.5 SDs using mean change SDs. Conclusion A distribution-based approach using data included in a systematic review approximated known MCIDs. Our approach performed better when we derived MCIDs from baseline as opposed to mean change SDs. This approach could facilitate clinical interpretation of outcome measures reported in RCTs and systematic reviews of interventions. Future research should focus on the generalizability of this method to other clinical scenarios.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Background COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. Methods and findings Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, −5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. Conclusions The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Abstract Background Prescribing trends suggest that pharmacologic alternatives to antipsychotics are gaining in popularity, but randomized trial (RCT) data of their comparative safety is scarce. Our objective was to describe the comparative safety of pharmacologic interventions for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception to May 28, 2019, for studies of pharmacologic interventions used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. Dementia care partners selected fracture risk as our primary outcome. Pairs of reviewers, working independently, conducted all study screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal. We conducted Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses (NMAs) using data from RCTs to derive odds ratios (ORs). In secondary analyses, we conducted frequentist random-effects NMAs using data from RCTs and Bayesian three-level hierarchical random-effects NMAs incorporating data from RCTs and non-randomized studies. Results Our systematic review included 209 randomized and non-randomized studies (889,378 persons with dementia). In NMAs of data from randomized trials, there were no increased odds of fracture associated with any intervention in primary analyses; however, data were sparse. We found increased odds of cerebrovascular events associated with antipsychotics (odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.29 to 3.62; number needed to harm [NNH] = 99) and increased odds of falls associated with dextromethorphan-quinidine (OR 4.16, 95% CrI 1.47 to 14.22; NNH = 55) compared to placebo in persons with dementia. In a subgroup of persons with Alzheimer disease, antipsychotics were associated with increased odds of fracture compared to anticonvulsants (OR 54.1, 95% CrI 1.15 to 38,300; NNH = 18). In older persons (mean age ≥ 80 years) with dementia, anticonvulsants were associated with increased odds of death compared to placebo (OR 8.36, 95% CrI 1.17 to 203.4; NNH = 35) and antipsychotics were associated with increased odds of death compared to antidepressants (OR 5.28, 95% CrI 1.06 to 3.51; NNH = 47). Conclusion Although antipsychotics were associated with greater harm than antidepressants and anticonvulsants in subgroups of persons with dementia, medications used in lieu of antipsychotics for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia, such as anticonvulsants and dextromethorphan-quinidine, were also associated with harm. Decision-making concerning treatments prescribed in lieu of antipsychotics should include potential harms. PROSPERO registration CRD42017050130.

Abstract Background COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an “active” comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or “active placebo”) for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020178787

Introduction Social isolation and loneliness in older adults are significant public health issues. Various interventions such as exercise programmes or social activities are used in the management of social isolation and loneliness in older adults. Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides effect estimates for all comparisons by considering the relative efficacy of multiple intervention alternatives. Therefore, this study will determine the comparative efficacy of intervention to alleviate social isolation and loneliness of older adults in community dwelling by comparing direct and indirect interventions through systematic review and NMA.Methods and analysis We will include all relevant randomised controlled trials for interventions of social isolation and loneliness in older adults written in English without any limitation of publication date through electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO and CINAHL. Independent teams of reviewers will screen trial eligibility, collect data, identify duplication and assess risk of bias, by using the Cochrane revised risk of bias tool. The interventions for the management of social isolation and loneliness will be included. The primary outcome is social isolation. The secondary outcomes are loneliness and health-related quality of life. We will conduct an NMA through a Bayesian hierarchical model, by testing assumption (ie, transitivity) for NMA. We will also estimate the ranking probabilities for all interventions at each possible rank for each intervention. For estimation of each intervention efficacy, we will assess the certainty and credibility using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval will not be obtained for this systematic review as it will be conducted with published papers. The review results will be presented at a field-specific conference and published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020155789.

Abstract Background Meta-analysis is a useful tool for combining evidence from multiple studies to estimate a pooled treatment effect. An extension of meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, is becoming more commonly used as a way to simultaneously compare multiple treatments in a single analysis. Despite the variety of approaches available for presenting fitted models, ascertaining an intuitive understanding of these models is often difficult. This is especially challenging in large networks with many different treatments. Here we propose two visualisation methods, so that network meta-analysis models can be more easily interpreted. Methods Our methods can be used irrespective of the statistical model or the estimation method used and are grounded in network analysis. We define three types of distance measures between the treatments that contribute to the network. These three distance measures are based on 1) the estimated treatment effects, 2) their standard errors and 3) the corresponding p-values. Then, by using a suitable threshold, we categorise some treatment pairs as being “close” (short distances). Treatments that are close are regarded as “connected” in the network analysis theory. Finally, we group the treatments into communities using standard methods for network analysis. We are then able to identify which parts of the network are estimated to have similar (or different) treatment efficacy and which parts of the network are better identified. We also propose a second method using parametric bootstrapping, where a heat map is used in the visualisation. We use the software R and provide the code used. Results We illustrate our new methods using a challenging dataset containing 22 treatments, and a previously fitted model for this data. Two communities of treatments that appear to have similar efficacy are identified. Furthermore using our methods we can identify parts of the network that are better (and less well) identified. Conclusions Our new visualisation approaches may be used by network meta-analysts to gain an intuitive understanding of the implications of their fitted models. Our visualisation methods may be used informally, to identify the most salient features of the fitted models that can then be reported, or more formally by presenting the new visualisation devices within published reports.

BackgroundCOVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19.Methods and findingsWe planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses.ConclusionsNo evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020178787.

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed.Methods and findingsThis is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors.ConclusionsOur results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

Abstract Background Failure to sustain knowledge translation (KT) interventions impacts patients and health systems, diminishing confidence in future implementation. Sustaining KT interventions used to implement chronic disease management (CDM) interventions is of critical importance given the proportion of older adults with chronic diseases and their need for ongoing care. Our objectives are to (1) complete a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sustainability of KT interventions that target CDM for end-users including older patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers on health care outcomes beyond 1 year after implementation or the termination of initial project funding and (2) use the results of this review to complete an economic analysis of the interventions identified to be effective. Methods For objective 1, comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of health care provider organisations and funding agencies will be conducted. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of a KT intervention targeting CDM in adults aged 65 years and older. To examine cost, economic studies (e.g. cost, cost-effectiveness analyses) will be included. Our primary outcome will be the sustainability of the delivery of the KT intervention beyond 1 year after implementation or termination of study funding. Secondary outcomes will include behaviour changes at the level of the patient (e.g. symptom management) and clinician (e.g. physician test ordering) and health system (e.g. cost, hospital admissions). Article screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed independently by two reviewers. Using established methods, if the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. For objective 2, we will build a decision analytic model comparing effective interventions to estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Discussion Our results will inform knowledge users (e.g. patients, clinicians, policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions for CDM. Dissemination plan of our results will be tailored to end-users and include passive (e.g. publications, website posting) and interactive (e.g. knowledge exchange events with stakeholders) strategies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810

While the contributing factors leading to endometriosis remain unclear, its clinical heterogeneity suggests a multifactorial causal background. Amongst others, caffeine has been studied extensively during the last decade as a putative contributing factor. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we provide an overview/critical appraisal of studies that report on the association between caffeine consumption and the presence of endometriosis. In our search strategy, we screened PubMed and Scopus for human studies examining the above association. The main outcome was the relative risk of endometriosis in caffeine users versus women consuming little or no caffeine (300 mg/day) or moderate (100–300 mg/day). Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis (five cohort and five case-control studies). No statistically significant association was observed between overall caffeine consumption and risk for endometriosis (RR 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97–1.28, I2 = 70%) when compared to little or no (2 = 56%), whereas moderate intake did not reach nominal statistical significance (RR 1.18, 95%CI 0.99–1.40, I2 = 37%). In conclusion, caffeine consumption does not appear to be associated with increased risk for endometriosis. However, further research is needed to elucidate the potential dose-dependent link between caffeine and endometriosis or the probable role of caffeine intake as a measurement of other unidentified biases.

Abstract Background Network meta-analysis, a method to synthesise evidence from multiple treatments, has increased in popularity in the past decade. Two broad approaches are available to synthesise data across networks, namely, arm- and contrast-synthesis models, with a range of models that can be fitted within each. There has been recent debate about the validity of the arm-synthesis models, but to date, there has been limited empirical evaluation comparing results using the methods applied to a large number of networks. We aim to address this gap through the re-analysis of a large cohort of published networks of interventions using a range of network meta-analysis methods. Methods We will include a subset of networks from a database of network meta-analyses of randomised trials that have been identified and curated from the published literature. The subset of networks will include those where the primary outcome is binary, the number of events and participants are reported for each direct comparison, and there is no evidence of inconsistency in the network. We will re-analyse the networks using three contrast-synthesis methods and two arm-synthesis methods. We will compare the estimated treatment effects, their standard errors, treatment hierarchy based on the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve, the SUCRA value, and the between-trial heterogeneity variance across the network meta-analysis methods. We will investigate whether differences in the results are affected by network characteristics and baseline risk. Discussion The results of this study will inform whether, in practice, the choice of network meta-analysis method matters, and if it does, in what situations differences in the results between methods might arise. The results from this research might also inform future simulation studies.

Abstract Background Pregnant women with epilepsy frequently experience seizures related to pregnancy complications and are often prescribed anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to manage their symptoms. However, less is known about the comparative safety of AED exposure in utero. We aimed to compare the risk of congenital malformations (CMs) and prenatal outcomes of AEDs in infants/children who were exposed to AEDs in utero through a systematic review and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 15, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text papers for experimental and observational studies comparing mono- or poly-therapy AEDs versus control (no AED exposure) or other AEDs, then abstracted data and appraised the risk of bias. The primary outcome was incidence of major CMs, overall and by specific type (cardiac malformations, hypospadias, cleft lip and/or palate, club foot, inguinal hernia, and undescended testes). Results After screening 5305 titles and abstracts, 642 potentially relevant full-text articles, and 17 studies from scanning reference lists, 96 studies were eligible (n = 58,461 patients). Across all major CMs, many AEDs were associated with higher risk compared to control. For major CMs, ethosuximide (OR, 3.04; 95% CrI, 1.23–7.07), valproate (OR, 2.93; 95% CrI, 2.36–3.69), topiramate (OR, 1.90; 95% CrI, 1.17–2.97), phenobarbital (OR, 1.83; 95% CrI, 1.35–2.47), phenytoin (OR, 1.67; 95% CrI, 1.30–2.17), carbamazepine (OR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.10–1.71), and 11 polytherapies were significantly more harmful than control, but lamotrigine (OR, 0.96; 95% CrI, 0.72–1.25) and levetiracetam (OR, 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.43–1.16) were not. Conclusion The newer generation AEDs, lamotrigine and levetiracetam, were not associated with significant increased risks of CMs compared to control, and were significantly less likely to be associated with children experiencing cardiac malformations than control. However, this does not mean that these agents are not harmful to infants/children exposed in utero. Counselling is advised concerning teratogenic risks when the prescription is written for a woman of childbearing age and before women continue with these agents when considering pregnancy, such as switching from polytherapy to monotherapy with evidence of lower risk and avoiding AEDs, such as valproate, that are consistently associated with CMs. These decisions must be balanced against the need for seizure control. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42014008925

Abstract Background Several indirect comparison methods, including network meta-analyses (NMAs), using individual patient data (IPD) have been developed to synthesize evidence from a network of trials. Although IPD indirect comparisons are published with increasing frequency in health care literature, there is no guidance on selecting the appropriate methodology and on reporting the methods and results. Methods In this paper we examine the methods and reporting of indirect comparison methods using IPD. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from inception until October 2014. We included published and unpublished studies reporting a method, application, or review of indirect comparisons using IPD and at least three interventions. Results We identified 37 papers, including a total of 33 empirical networks. Of these, only 9 (27 %) IPD-NMAs reported the existence of a study protocol, whereas 3 (9 %) studies mentioned that protocols existed without providing a reference. The 33 empirical networks included 24 (73 %) IPD-NMAs and 9 (27 %) matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Of the 21 (64 %) networks with at least one closed loop, 19 (90 %) were IPD-NMAs, 13 (68 %) of which evaluated the prerequisite consistency assumption, and only 5 (38 %) of the 13 IPD-NMAs used statistical approaches. The median number of trials included per network was 10 (IQR 4–19) (IPD-NMA: 15 [IQR 8–20]; MAIC: 2 [IQR 3–5]), and the median number of IPD trials included in a network was 3 (IQR 1–9) (IPD-NMA: 6 [IQR 2–11]; MAIC: 2 [IQR 1–2]). Half of the networks (17; 52 %) applied Bayesian hierarchical models (14 one-stage, 1 two-stage, 1 used IPD as an informative prior, 1 unclear-stage), including either IPD alone or with aggregated data (AD). Models for dichotomous and continuous outcomes were available (IPD alone or combined with AD), as were models for time-to-event data (IPD combined with AD). Conclusions One in three indirect comparison methods modeling IPD adjusted results from different trials to estimate effects as if they had come from the same, randomized, population. Key methodological and reporting elements (e.g., evaluation of consistency, existence of study protocol) were often missing from an indirect comparison paper.

BACKGROUND:Nearly all newly infected children acquire Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) via mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) during pregnancy, labour or breastfeeding from untreated HIV-positive mothers. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the standard care for pregnant women with HIV. However, evidence of ART effectiveness and harms in infants and children of HIV-positive pregnant women exposed to ART has been largely inconclusive. The aim of our systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of ART drugs in children exposed to maternal HIV and ART (or no ART/placebo) across different study designs. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception until December 7, 2015). Primary outcomes were any congenital malformations (CMs; safety), including overall major and minor CMs, and mother-to-child transmission (MTCT; effectiveness). Random-effects Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs were conducted. After screening 6,468 citations and 1,373 full-text articles, 90 studies of various study designs and 90,563 patients were included. RESULTS:The NMA on CMs (20 studies, 7,503 children, 16 drugs) found that none of the ART drugs examined here were associated with a significant increase in CMs. However, zidovudine administered with lamivudine and indinavir was associated with increased risk of preterm births, zidovudine administered with nevirapine was associated with increased risk of stillbirths, and lamivudine administered with stavudine and efavirenz was associated with increased risk of low birth weight. A NMA on MTCT (11 studies, 10,786 patients, 6 drugs) found that zidovudine administered once (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.19-0.83) or twice (OR = 0.43, 95% CrI: 0.21-0.68) was associated with significantly reduced risk of MTCT. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that ART drugs are not associated with an increased risk of CMs, yet some may increase adverse birth events. Some ART drugs (e.g., zidovudine) effectively reduce MTCT.

Background The present protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO under de ID code CRD42023476313, and adheres the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. The complete checklist can be consulted in the extended data section. Allergic Rhinitis (AR) is the most common chronic disease in children worldwide. According to many guidelines topical nasal steroids (TNS) are the first-line treatment for moderate/severe AR in children, nevertheless there is no conclusive evidence about which of them is superior in terms of efficacy and safety, including their impact on child’s growth. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating TNS in the treatment of children with moderate/severe AR. The primary outcome is the efficacy measured with the Total Nasal Symptom Severity Score (TNSS). Secondary outcomes are quality of life, adverse events (AE), and growth velocity. We will search Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO trials database and grey literature resources. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, review full texts, extract information, and assess the risk of bias and the confidence in the estimate (with the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation [GRADE] approach). We will conduct a random-effects NMA to combine the pooled direct and indirect treatment effect estimates for each outcome if adequate data is available and transitivity and coherence assumptions are considered justifiable. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses are planned to evaluate the impact of some potential effect modifiers such as doses, co-intervention with oral antihistamines, the type of AR (intermittent or persistent), sponsorship of the study, the time of outcomes measurement and the risk of bias. We will use GRADE approach to draw conclusions from NMA. Discussion This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the relative efficacy and safety of the TNS for treatment of children with moderate/severe AR. The results will provide valuable information to assist clinicians, guideline developers, patients, and policy makers about the management of these patients, based on the best available evidence. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO number: CRD42023476313.

Systematic reviews that employ network meta-analysis are undertaken and published with increasing frequency while related statistical methodology is evolving. Future statistical developments and evaluation of the existing methodologies could be motivated by the characteristics of the networks of interventions published so far in order to tackle real rather than theoretical problems. Based on the recently formed network meta-analysis literature we aim to provide an insight into the characteristics of networks in healthcare research. We searched PubMed until end of 2012 for meta-analyses that used any form of indirect comparison. We collected data from networks that compared at least four treatments regarding their structural characteristics as well as characteristics of their analysis. We then conducted a descriptive analysis of the various network characteristics. We included 186 networks of which 35 (19%) were star-shaped (treatments were compared to a common comparator but not between themselves). The median number of studies per network was 21 and the median number of treatments compared was 6. The majority (85%) of the non-star shaped networks included at least one multi-arm study. Synthesis of data was primarily done via network meta-analysis fitted within a Bayesian framework (113 (61%) networks). We were unable to identify the exact method used to perform indirect comparison in a sizeable number of networks (18 (9%)). In 32% of the networks the investigators employed appropriate statistical methods to evaluate the consistency assumption; this percentage is larger among recently published articles. Our descriptive analysis provides useful information about the characteristics of networks of interventions published the last 16 years and the methods for their analysis. Although the validity of network meta-analysis results highly depends on some basic assumptions, most authors did not report and evaluate them adequately. Reviewers and editors need to be aware of these assumptions and insist on their reporting and accuracy.