Search

Background: Prior systematic reviews have compared the efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke, assigning their relative complications as a secondary objective. The objective of the present study is to determine whether the risk of treatment complications differs between patients treated with either agent. Methods: We performed a systematic review including interventional studies and prospective and retrospective, observational studies enrolling adult patients treated with intravenous tenecteplase for ischemic stroke (both comparative and noncomparative with alteplase). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the www.ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception through June 3, 2022. The primary outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and secondary outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage, angioedema, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, other extracranial hemorrhage, and mortality. We performed random effects meta-analyses where appropriate. Evidence was synthesized as relative risks, comparing risks in patients exposed to tenecteplase versus alteplase and absolute risks in patients treated with tenecteplase. Results: Of 2226 records identified, 25 full-text articles (reporting 26 studies of 7913 patients) were included. Sixteen studies included alteplase as a comparator, and 10 were noncomparative. The relative risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients treated with tenecteplase compared with alteplase in the 16 comparative studies was 0.89 ([95% CI, 0.65–1.23]; I 2 =0%). Among patients treated with low dose (2 =0%), 0.77 ([95% CI, 0.53–1.14]; I 2 =0%), and 2.31 ([95% CI, 0.69–7.75]; I 2 =40%), respectively. The pooled risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in tenecteplase-treated patients, including comparative and noncomparative studies, was 0.99% ([95% CI, 0%–3.49%]; I 2 =0%, 7 studies), 1.69% ([95% CI, 1.14%–2.32%]; I 2 =1%, 23 studies), and 4.19% ([95% CI, 1.92%–7.11%]; I 2 =52%, 5 studies) within the low-, medium-, and high-dose groups. The risks of any intracranial hemorrhage, mortality, and other studied outcomes were comparable between the 2 agents. Conclusions: Across medium- and low-dose tiers, the risks of complications were generally comparable between those treated with tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.

ImportanceDry eye is a common clinical manifestation, a leading cause of eye clinic visits, and a significant societal and personal economic burden in the United States. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain updated estimates of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States.Data SourcesOvid MEDLINE and Embase.Study SelectionA search conducted on August 16, 2021, identified studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 16, 2021, with no restrictions regarding participant age or language of publication. Case reports, case series, case-control studies, and interventional studies were excluded.Data Extraction and SynthesisThe conduct of review followed a protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021256934). PRISMA guidelines were followed for reporting. Joanna Briggs Institute and Newcastle Ottawa Scale tools were used to assess risk of bias. Data extraction was conducted by 1 reviewer and verified by another for accuracy. Prevalence of dry eye and MGD were combined in separate meta-analyses using random-effects models.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Summary estimates from meta-analysis of dry eye and MGD prevalence with 95% CI and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI).ResultsThirteen studies were included in the systematic review. Dry eye prevalence was reported by 10 studies, dry eye incidence by 2 studies, and MGD prevalence by 3 studies. Meta-analysis estimated a dry eye prevalence of 8.1% (95% CI, 4.9%-13.1%; 95% PI, 0%-98.9%; 3 studies; 9 808 758 participants) and MGD prevalence of 21.2% (95% CI, 7.2%-48.3%; 95% PI, 0%-100%; 3 studies; 19 648 participants). Dry eye incidence was 3.5% in a population 18 years and older and 7.8% in a population aged 68 years and older. No studies reported MGD incidence.Conclusions and RelevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated uncertainty about the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Population-based epidemiological studies that use consistent and validated definitions of dry eye and MGD are needed for higher-certainty estimates of dry eye and MGD prevalence and incidence in the United States.

Health services interventions comprise a range of elements and procedures that contribute to their effects. However, there is currently limited guidance to systematically classify different features of health services interventions. We propose an approach to aid in classifying health services interventions using three potential elements: theme, intensity, and provider/platform (TIP). We designed the TIP framework to be analogous to three elements of a medication intervention that contribute to its pharmaceutical effects: 1) active ingredient, 2) dose, and 3) dosage form or route of administration. Health services interventions encompass similar elements: 1) "theme", which corresponds to the active ingredient and specifies the main element of the intervention; 2) "intensity", which corresponds to the dose regimen; and 3) "provider" or "platform", which corresponds to the dosage form or route of administration and indicates how the main element is delivered. Each health services intervention can be classified into a set of unique TIP features, which can then be compared with others using either a qualitative or qualitative approach. The TIP framework is not suitable for multicomponent health services interventions, in which a singular main theme or active component cannot be identified. The TIP framework enables researchers to systematically characterize health services interventions according to their unique features that contribute to its effects. It also helps to generate evidence to determine not only what service is more effective, but also how to best deliver such service.

We developed guidance to inform decisions regarding the inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in systematic reviews (SRs) of the effects of interventions.The guidance workgroup comprised SR experts and used an informal consensus generation method.Instead of recommending NRSI inclusion only if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are insufficient to address the SR key question, different topics may require different decisions regarding NRSI inclusion. We identified important considerations to inform such decisions from topic refinement through protocol development. During topic scoping and refinement, considerations were related to the clinical decisional dilemma, adequacy of RCTs to address the key questions, risk of bias in NRSIs, and the extent to which NRSIs are likely to complement RCTs. When NRSIs are included, during SR team formation, familiarity with topic-specific data sources and advanced analytic methods for NRSIs should be considered. During protocol development, the decision regarding NRSI inclusion or exclusion should be justified, and potential implications explained. When NRSIs are included, the protocol should describe the processes for synthesizing evidence from RCTs and NRSIs and determining the overall strength of evidence.We identified specific considerations for decisions regarding NRSI inclusion in SRs and highlight the importance of flexibility and transparency.

Background: High level evidence for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis is lacking. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis. Methods: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021228800). We searched MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Web of Science Core Collection between January 1, 2007 and Feb 22, 2022. Search terms included a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary terms for cerebral venous thrombosis, vitamin K antagonists/warfarin, and DOACs. We included both randomized and nonrandomized studies that compared vitamin K antagonists and DOACs in 5 or more patients with cerebral venous thrombosis. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy (recurrent venous thromboembolism and complete recanalization) and safety (major hemorrhage) outcomes, using relative risks (RRs). Results: Out of 10 665 records identified, we screened 254 as potentially eligible. Nineteen studies (16 observational studies [n=1735] and 3 randomized controlled trials [n=215]) met the inclusion criteria. All 3 randomized controlled trials had some concerns, and all 16 observational studies had at least moderate risk of bias. When compared with vitamin K antagonist treatment, DOAC had comparable risks of recurrent venous thromboembolism (relative risk [RR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.52–1.37], I 2 =0%), major hemorrhage (RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.40–1.21], I 2 =0%), intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.30–1.12]; I 2 =0%), death (RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.54–2.43], I 2 =1%), and complete venous recanalization (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87–1.11]; I 2 =0%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, DOACs, and warfarin may have comparable efficacy and safety. Given the limitations of the studies included (low number of randomized controlled trials, modest total sample size, rare outcome events), our findings should be interpreted with caution pending confirmation by ongoing randomized controlled trials and large, prospective, observational studies.

To evaluate the association between the use of low-dose aspirin for preeclampsia prophylaxis and risks of gestational diabetes (primary outcome), neonatal hypoglycemia, macrosomia, large for gestational age, birth trauma, and shoulder dystocia (secondary outcomes).We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane/CENTRAL for studies published between January 1, 1989, and April 24, 2021.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of any size conducted in any setting were included.We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (for RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (for cohort studies). We meta-analyzed relative risks (RRs) using random-effects models.Our search retrieved 4441 records, of which 9 studies (6 RCTs with 1932 patients and 3 cohort studies with 313 837 patients) met inclusion criteria. We rated only 4 of the 6 RCTs and 1 of the 3 cohort studies at low risk of bias. Low-dose aspirin in pregnancy for preeclampsia prophylaxis was not associated with a greater risk of gestational diabetes (RR 1.18; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.74). No studies reported data for the secondary outcomes. In summary, the use of low-dose aspirin does not appear associated with risk of gestational diabetes. The poor quality and small number of studies limit the interpretation of these results.

Background. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are increasingly common and have important implications for maternal health, healthcare utilization, and health disparities. There is limited evidence to support best management of postpartum individuals with HDP, including home blood pressure (BP) monitoring (HBPM) and choice of antihypertensive agents. For patients experiencing preeclampsia with severe features, there is robust evidence supporting delivery of the infant and treatment with magnesium sulfate (MgSO4). However, MgSO4 may cause unpleasant side effects and, less commonly, toxicity. Patients receiving MgSO4 require additional monitoring (e.g., urinary catheterization) and often have activity restrictions, which impact their postpartum experience. Evidence regarding the optimal (lowest effective) dose and (shortest effective) duration of MgSO4 treatment is needed. Methods. We searched Medline®, Cochrane, Embase®, CINAHL®, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 1, 2022. After double screening, we extracted study data and risk of bias assessments into the Systematic Review Data Repository Plus (SRDR+; https://srdrplus.ahrq.gov). We evaluated the strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022313075). Results. We found 13 eligible studies (3 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 nonrandomized comparative studies [NRCSs], 8 single-arm studies) evaluating postpartum HBPM, 17 RCTs evaluating pharmacological treatment of postpartum HDP, and 43 studies (41 RCTs and 2 NRCSs) that compared alternative MgSO4 regimens. HBPM programs probably increase submission of any BP measurements during recommended time intervals (moderate SoE) and may increase the number of BP measurements obtained overall (low SoE). Studies have not found that HBPM affects the rate of BP treatment initiation (low SoE), but HBPM may reduce unplanned hypertension-related hospital admissions (low SoE). Most patients were satisfied with management related to HBPM (low SoE), and HBPM probably compensates for racial disparities in office-based follow-up (moderate SoE). In patients with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension (HTN), oral furosemide may shorten the duration of postpartum hypertension (low SoE). There was insufficient evidence regarding the comparative benefits and harms of other antihypertensive medications. Compared with 24-hour treatments, shorter duration MgSO4 regimens shorten the urinary catheterization time (high SoE), time to ambulation (high SoE), and time to breastfeeding (moderate SoE); and may shorten time from delivery to contact with the infant and decrease toxicity as manifested by lost deep tendon reflexes (both low SoE). Loading dose only regimens increase the risk of a recurrent seizure in patients with eclampsia (moderate SoE). Lower dose MgSO4 regimens, compared to standard dose regimens, reduce early signs of magnesium toxicity (high SoE), may approximately double the risk of recurrent seizure in patients with eclampsia (low SoE), but may not affect 5-minute Apgar scores in infants of patients with preeclampsia with severe features (low SoE). There is insufficient evidence regarding potential harms of concomitant use of nifedipine or other antihypertensive medications. Conclusion. HBPM probably improves ascertainment of BP, allowing early recognition of hypertension in postpartum patients, and probably compensates for racial disparities in office based follow-up. The evidence suggests furosemide may shorten the duration of postpartum HTN. However, further evidence is needed regarding the comparative benefits and harms of the antihypertensive medications used to treat postpartum HTN. Large pragmatic trials, augmented by analysis of real-world data, are needed to evaluate the effect of postpartum HBPM on clinical event outcomes (not only process outcomes) and on the comparative effectiveness of alternative antihypertensive treatments. Given that lower dose MgSO4 regimens reduce Mg toxicity, and shorter regimens decrease urinary catheterization time, time to ambulation, time to breastfeeding, and time from delivery to contact with the infant, evidence is needed to identify MgSO4 regimens with the lowest effective dose and shortest effective duration that minimize side effects and toxicity but still prevent seizures among patients with preeclampsia with severe features.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the relationship between resilience resources at the individual (e.g., optimism), interpersonal (e.g., social support), and neighborhood (e.g., social environment) levels, and cardiovascular outcomes among adults in the United States. Method: On 9/25/2020, electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized intervention studies, and prospective cohort studies that examined the relationship between resilience resources at the individual, interpersonal, or neighborhood level and cardiovascular outcomes. Studies that met the eligibility criteria were summarized narratively and quantitatively. Because relevant search results yielded only observational studies, risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Results: From 4,103 unique records, 13 prospective cohort studies with a total of 310,906 participants met the eligibility criteria, and six of these studies were included in the meta-analyses. Most relevant studies found that higher levels of individual-level resilience resources were associated with lower incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, with point estimates ranging from .46 to 1.18. Interpersonal-level resilience resources (i.e., social network) were associated with a lower coronary heart disease risk (risk ratio, .76; 95% CI [.56, 1.02]). Neighborhood-level resilience resources (i.e., perceived social cohesion and residential stability) were associated with a lower odds of stroke (odds ratio, .92; 95% CI [.84, 1.01]). Conclusions: Evidence suggests that higher levels of resilience resources are associated with better cardiovascular outcomes. However, more prospective studies with diverse populations are needed to strengthen the evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Dry eye disease (DED), arising from various etiologic factors, leads to tear film instability, ocular surface damage, and neurosensory changes. DED causes symptoms such as ocular dryness, burning, itching, pain, and visual impairment. Given their well-established anti-inflammatory effects, topical steroid preparations have been widely used as a short-term treatment option for DED. Because of potential risks of ocular hypertension, cataracts, and infections associated with the long-term use of topical steroids, published trials comparing the efficacy and safety of topical steroids (versus placebo) have mostly been of short duration (three to eight weeks).To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids compared with no treatment, placebo, other steroidal or non-steroidal therapies, or a combination of therapies for DED.We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 20 August 2021.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which topical corticosteroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, were compared with no treatment, artificial tears (AT), vehicles, AT plus tobramycin, or cyclosporine A (CsA).We applied standard Cochrane methodology.We identified 22 RCTs conducted in the USA, Italy, Spain, China, South Korea, and India. These RCTs reported outcome data from a total of 4169 participants with DED. Study characteristics and risk of bias All trials recruited adults aged 18 years or older, except one trial that enrolled children and adolescents aged between 3 and 14 years. Half of these trials involved predominantly female participants (median 79%, interquartile range [IQR] 76% to 80%). On average, each trial enrolled 86 participants (IQR 40 to 158). The treatment duration of topical steroids ranged between one week and three months; trial duration lasted between one week and six months. Eight trials were sponsored exclusively by industry, and four trials were co-sponsored by industry and institutional or governmental funds. We assessed the risk of bias of both subjective and objective outcomes using RoB 2, finding nearly half of the trials to be at high risk of bias associated with selective outcome reporting. Findings Of the 22 trials, 16 evaluated effects of topical steroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, as compared with lubricants (AT, vehicle), AT plus tobramycin, or no treatment. Corticosteroids probably have a small to moderate effect on improving patient-reported symptoms by 0.29 standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.42) as compared with lubricants (moderate certainty evidence). Topical steroids also likely have a small to moderate effect on lowering corneal staining scores by 0.4 SMDs (95% CI 0.18 to 0.62) (moderate certainty evidence). However, steroids may increase tear film break-up time (TBUT) slightly (mean difference [MD] 0.70 s, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; low certainty evidence) but not tear osmolarity (MD 1.60 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -10.47 to 13.67; very low certainty evidence). Six trials examined topical steroids, either alone or in combination with CsA, against CsA alone. Low certainty evidence indicates that steroid-based interventions may have a small to moderate effect on improving participants' symptoms (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.15), but little to no effect on corneal staining scores (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.35) as compared with CsA. The effect of topical steroids compared to CsA alone on TBUT (MD 0.37 s, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.87) or tear osmolarity (MD 5.80 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -0.94 to 12.54; loteprednol etabonate alone) is uncertain because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life scores. Adverse effects The evidence for adverse ocular effects of topical corticosteroids is very uncertain. Topical corticosteroids may increase participants' risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (risk ratio [RR] 5.96, 95% CI 1.30 to 27.38) as compared with lubricants. However, when compared with CsA, steroids alone or combined with CsA may decrease or increase IOP elevation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.33). It is also uncertain whether topical steroids may increase risk of cataract formation when compared with lubricants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.22), given the short-term use and study duration (four weeks or less) to observe longer-term adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence for the specified review outcomes was of moderate to very low certainty, mostly due to high risk of bias associated with selective results reporting. For dry eye patients whose symptoms require anti-inflammatory control, topical corticosteroids probably provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond lubricants, and may provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond CsA. However, the current evidence is less certain about the effects of steroids on improved tear film quality or quantity. The available evidence is also very uncertain regarding the adverse effects of topical corticosteroids on IOP elevation or cataract formation or progression. Future trials should generate high certainty evidence to inform physicians and patients of the optimal treatment strategies with topical corticosteroids in terms of regimen (types, formulations, dosages), duration, and its time-dependent adverse profile.

To investigate health disparities in racial and ethnic minorities with dry eye.Medical records were reviewed for demographics, socioeconomic factors, treatments, and objective dry eye parameters. Race/ethnicity was self-reported as delineated by the U.S. Census. The reference group comprised of randomly selected White patients, with number equal to the largest minority group.The study included 465 patients (157 Black, 157 White, 85 Asian, and 66 Hispanic). Compared to White (3.2%) patients, larger proportion of minorities used Medicaid or lacked health insurance (Black 8.3%,Minorities presented with worse objective dry eye parameters, and less prior dry eye care. Income and health care access may not fully explain the observed undertreatment at presentation. Differential management by eye care providers and patient attitudes warrant further investigation.

ObjectivesTo review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare.Study Design and SettingThis article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.ResultsCOS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties that might use the COS and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. An overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organizations are recommending COS be considered.ConclusionWe suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.

Introduction: Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) are observational or experimental studies of the effectiveness and/or harms of interventions, in which participants are not randomized to intervention groups. There is increasingly widespread recognition that advancements in the design and analysis of NRSIs allow NRSI evidence to have a much more prominent role in decision making, and not just as ancillary evidence to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective: To guide decisions about inclusion of NRSIs for addressing the effects of interventions in systematic reviews (SRs), this chapter updates the 2010 guidance on inclusion of NRSIs in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) SRs. The chapter focuses on considerations for decisions to include or exclude NRSIs in SRs. Methods: In November 2020, AHRQ convened a 20-member workgroup that comprised 13 members representing 8 of 9 AHRQ-appointed EPCs, 3 AHRQ representatives, 1 independent consultant with expertise in SRs, and 3 representatives of the AHRQ-appointed Scientific Resource Center. The workgroup received input from the full EPC Program regarding the process and specific issues through discussions at a virtual meeting and two online surveys regarding challenges with NRSI inclusion in SRs. One survey focused on current practices by EPCs regarding NRSI inclusion in ongoing and recently completed SRs. The other survey focused on the appropriateness, completeness, and usefulness of existing EPC Program methods guidance. The workgroup considered the virtual meeting and survey input when identifying aspects of the guidance that needed updating. The workgroup used an informal method for generating consensus about guidance. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Results: We outline considerations for the inclusion of NRSIs in SRs of intervention effectiveness. We describe the strengths and limitations of RCTs, study design features and types of NRSIs, and key considerations for making decisions about inclusion of NRSIs (during the stages of topic scoping and refinement, SR team formation, protocol development, SR conduct, and SR reporting). We discuss how NRSIs may be applicable for the decisional dilemma being addressed in the SR, threats to the internal validity of NRSIs, as well as various data sources and advanced analytic methods that may be used in NRSIs. Finally, we outline an approach to incorporating NRSIs within an SR and key considerations for reporting. Conclusion: The main change from the previous guidance is the overall approach to decisions about inclusion of NRSIs in EPC SRs. Instead of recommending NRSI inclusion only if RCTs are insufficient to address the Key Question, this updated guidance handles NRSI evidence as a valuable source of information and lays out important considerations for decisions about the inclusion of NRSIs in SRs of intervention effectiveness. Different topics may require different decisions regarding NRSI inclusion. This guidance is intended to improve the utility of the final product to end-users. Inclusion of NRSIs will increase the scope, time, and resources needed to complete SRs, and NRSIs pose potential threats to validity, such as selection bias, confounding, and misclassification of interventions. Careful consideration must be given to both concerns.

Co-occurring mental health and substance use (SU) disorders among adolescents are common, with two-thirds of adolescents who seek SU treatment also requiring support for mental health. Primary care physicians play a key role in the pharmacological treatment of mental health disorders among adolescents, however, little is known about the impact of these treatments on SU outcomes.This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding commonly used pharmacotherapy interventions for mental health and their impact on adolescent SU.Literature searches were conducted across five databases as part of a larger systematic review of adolescent SU interventions. Studies were screened for eligibility by two researchers, and study data were extracted regarding study design, patient and treatment characteristics and results. Risk of bias analyses and qualitative syntheses were completed to evaluate the strength of the evidence and the impact of pharmacotherapy on SU outcomes.Ten randomized controlled trials exploring seven pharmacotherapies met criteria for inclusion. All studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Four studies evaluated pharmacotherapy for co-occurring depression and SU, three evaluated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and SU, and three evaluated bipolar disorder and SU. Five of the 10 studies also included a behavioural intervention. We found no evidence that pharmacotherapy for co-occurring mental health diagnoses impacted SU.Family medicine clinicians prescribing pharmacotherapy for mental health should be aware that additional interventions will likely be needed to address co-occurring SU.Many adolescents have both mental health and substance use problems. Adolescents have difficulty getting effective treatment for both substance use and mental health concerns, in part because these treatments are often offered separately. Primary care physicians, who often care for adolescents with mental health concerns, may prescribe medications for diagnoses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression or early symptoms of bipolar disorder. However, there is little research indicating whether these medications are helpful for co-occurring substance use disorder symptoms. This paper presents a review of existing research on medications used to treat common mental health disorders to evaluate their effect on substance use. Ten studies address this question and suggest that medications for mental health are insufficient for helping adolescents with substance use disorders or substance use problems.

Objectives Using recent systematic reviews (SRs), our objectives were to: (1) develop a framework to assess whether a given COS is relevant to the scope of a SR; (2) examine the proportion of SRs for which relevant COS exist; and (3) for SRs for which COS exist, examine the extent to which outcomes in the COS and outcomes in the SR match. Study Design and Setting We included a sample of SRs published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program between January 1, 2018 and October 12, 2020. We searched for potentially relevant COS from the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. We assessed the matching between outcomes recommended by COS and those included in corresponding SRs. When outcomes were matched, we considered matches to be specific (i.e., exact) or general (i.e., non-specific). Results Sixty-seven SRs met criteria. We found relevant COS for 36 of 67 SRs (54%). Our framework for comparing the scope of a SR and a COS describes 16 scenarios arising when the breadth of the populations and the interventions are considered. The framework guides systematic reviewers to determine whether a COS is very likely to be relevant, may be relevant, or unlikely to be relevant. Sixty-two percent of outcomes in COS (interquartile range, 40% – 80%) were either specific or general matches to outcomes in SRs. Conclusion We found a COS with relevant scope for more than half of the SRs in our sample, with almost two-thirds of the recommended core outcomes matched to outcomes chosen for the SRs. Consideration of COS appears relevant for SR planning and our framework for assessing relevance of a given COS may help with this process.

Purpose Among adult individuals with dry eye, assess the self-reported impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (1) dry eye-related visual function, (2) reading efficiency, and (3) dry eye treatments used. Methods In June–July 2020, we conducted an online survey of adults with dry eye who spent at least somewhat more time at home during the pandemic than before. Consistent with TFOS DEWS II guidelines, we categorized respondents into mild, moderate, or severe dry eye based on treatment usage. Results We included 388 respondents: 97 respondents (25%) with mild, 80 (21%) with moderate, and 211 (54%) with severe dry eye. In all three groups, screen/reading time generally doubled during the pandemic. Reduced work-related efficiency was noted by a considerable proportion of respondents (moderate dry eye: 51%, mild: 39%, and severe: 38%). Compared with respondents with mild dry eye, respondents with moderate dry eye were considerably more likely to note worsening symptoms: eye pain (OR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.22–5.41), headache from eye symptoms (OR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.11–4.90), and difficulty concentrating because of eye symptoms (OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.37–5.66). Respondents with moderate dry eye with Sjogren's syndrome were most likely to note these. Respondents with severe dry eye were more likely than respondents with mild dry eye to report losing access to dry eye-related treatments (OR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.36–5.03). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic-related eye strain may be impacting symptoms, performance, and ultimately employment, especially for those with moderate dry eye. This may be compounding the already-high dry eye-related societal burden.

Background Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to best and most safely manage them. Objective We conducted a systematic review (SR) of interventions to prevent or treat primary headaches in women who are pregnant, attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of SRs, and Epistemonikos for primary studies of pregnant women with primary headache and existing SRs of harms in pregnant women regardless of indication. No date or language restrictions were applied. We assessed strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods. Results We screened 8549 citations for studies and 2788 citations for SRs. Sixteen studies (mostly high risk of bias) comprising 14,185 patients (total) and 26 SRs met the criteria. For prevention, we found no evidence addressing effectiveness. Antiepileptics, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, prednisolone, and oral magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be (1 single-group study and 11 SRs; low-to-moderate SoE). For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine for migraine or tension headache (1 randomized controlled trial; low SoE). Triptans may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects (8 nonrandomized comparative studies; low SoE). Acetaminophen, prednisolone, indomethacin, ondansetron, antipsychotics, and intravenous magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but low-dose aspirin may not be (indirect evidence; low-to-moderate SoE). We found insufficient evidence regarding non-pharmacologic treatments. Conclusions For prevention of primary headache, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine. Triptans and low-dose aspirin may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. Future research should identify effective and safe interventions in pregnancy and postpartum.

Although symptom relief is a critical aspect for successful drug development in Sjögren's disease, patient experiences with Sjögren's-related symptoms are understudied. Our objective was to determine how pain, dryness, and fatigue, the cardinal symptoms of Sjögren's disease, drive cluster phenotypes.We used data from the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) Registry and a Sjögren's Foundation survey. We performed hierarchical clustering of symptoms by levels of dryness, fatigue, and pain. Using international and US cohorts, we performed multiple logistic regression analysis to compare the clusters, which included comparisons of differences in symptoms, quality of life (QoL), medication use, and systemic manifestations.Four similar clusters were identified among 1,454 SICCA registrants and 2,920 Sjögren's Foundation survey participants: 1) low symptom burden in all categories (LSB); 2) dry with low pain and low fatigue (DLP); 3) dry with high pain and low to moderate fatigue (DHP); and 4) high symptom burden in all categories (HSB). Distribution of SICCA registrants matching the symptom profile for each cluster was 10% in the LSB cluster, 30% in the DLP cluster, 23% in the DHP cluster, and 37% in the HSB cluster. Distribution of survey participants matching the symptom profile for each cluster was 23% in the LSB cluster, 14% in the DLP cluster, 21% in the DHP cluster, and 42% in the HSB cluster. Individuals in the HSB cluster had more total symptoms and lower QoL but lower disease severity than those in the other clusters. Despite having milder disease as measured by laboratory tests and organ involvement, individuals in the HSB cluster received immunomodulatory treatment most often.We identified 4 symptom-based Sjögren's clusters and showed that symptom burden and immunomodulatory medication use do not correlate with Sjögren's end-organ or laboratory abnormalities. Findings highlight a discordance between objective measures and treatments and offer updates to proposed symptom-based clustering approaches.

Purpose To compare the burden related to dry eye with systemic symptoms of Sjogren syndrome; to estimate the burden related to ocular treatments; and to compare the impact of dry eye and extraocular manifestations of Sjogren syndrome on various aspects of patient life. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods We conducted a postal survey of adult patients with a history of physician-diagnosed Sjogren syndrome. Results The survey was completed by 2,961 patients (mean age 65.1 years, standard deviation 11.7 years), most of whom were women (96%) and white (94%). Forty-one patients younger than 18 years of age were excluded. More than half (53%) experienced severe dry eye (ie, dry eye daily/almost daily with major impact on their life). Corresponding proportions for dry mouth and fatigue were 48% and 45%, respectively. Almost all patients (97%) had used nonprescription eye drops/artificial tears/ointments. Compared with patients who did not experience dry eye, those who experienced significant dry eye (ie, daily/almost daily dry eye) more often agreed that living with Sjogren syndrome made every day a challenge (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.49 to 5.86) and added a significant emotional burden (adjusted OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.31). Adjusted ORs for the impact of dry eye were generally lower than those for fatigue, but were similar to dry mouth and considerably higher than use of systemic treatments for serious manifestations of the disease and diagnosis of lymphoma. Conclusions Sjogren-related dry eye is more burdensome than systemic manifestations of the disease. While fatigue has the greatest impact on patient life, the impact of dry eye is comparable to that of other systemic manifestations.

Accurately describing treatment effects using plain language and narrative statements is a critical step in communicating research findings to end users. However, the process of developing these narratives has not been historically guided by a specific framework. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program developed guidance for narrative summaries of treatment effects that identifies five constructs. We explicitly identify these constructs to facilitate developing narrative statements: (1) direction of effect, (2) size of effect, (3) clinical importance, (4) statistical significance, and (5) strength or certainty of evidence. These constructs clearly overlap. It may not always be feasible to address all five constructs. Based on context and intended audience, investigators can determine which constructs will be most important to address in narrative statements.

Objective.To define the association between oral and systemic manifestations of Sjögren syndrome (SS) and quality of life (QOL).Methods.We analyzed a cross-sectional survey conducted by the Sjögren’s Foundation in 2016, with 2961 eligible responses. We defined oral symptom and sign exposures as parotid gland swelling, dry mouth, mouth ulcers/sores, oral candidiasis, trouble speaking, choking or dysphagia, sialolithiasis or gland infection, and dental caries. Systemic exposures included interstitial lung disease, purpura/petechiae/cryoglobulinemia, vasculitis, neuropathy, leukopenia, interstitial nephritis, renal tubular acidosis, autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, or lymphoma. Outcomes included SS-specific QOL questions generated by SS experts and patients.Results.Using multivariable regression models adjusted for age, sex, race, and employment, we observed that mouth ulcers or sores, trouble speaking, and dysphagia were associated with poor quality of life. The following oral aspects had the greatest effect on the following QOL areas: (1) mouth ulcers/sores on the challenge and burden of living with SS (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.89–6.28); (2) trouble speaking on memory and concentration (OR 4.24, 95% CI 3.28–5.48); and (3) dysphagia on functional interference (OR 4.25, 95% CI 3.13–5.79). In contrast, systemic manifestations were associated with QOL to a lesser extent or not at all.Conclusion.Oral manifestations of SS, particularly mouth ulcers or sores, trouble speaking, and dysphagia, were strongly associated with worse QOL. Further study and targeted treatment of these oral manifestations provides the opportunity to improve quality of life in patients with SS.

Background There is broad recognition of the importance of evidence in informing clinical decisions. When information from all studies included in a systematic review (“review”) does not contribute to a meta-analysis, decision-makers can be frustrated. Our objectives were to use the field of eyes and vision as a case study and examine the extent to which authors of Cochrane reviews conducted meta-analyses for their review’s pre-specified main outcome domain and the reasons that some otherwise eligible studies were not incorporated into meta-analyses. Methods We examined all completed systematic reviews published by Cochrane Eyes and Vision, as of August 11, 2017. We extracted information about each review’s outcomes and, using an algorithm, categorized one outcome as its “main” outcome. We calculated the percentage of included studies incorporated into meta-analyses for any outcome and for the main outcome. We examined reasons for non-inclusion of studies into the meta-analysis for the main outcome. Results We identified 175 completed reviews, of which 125 reviews included two or more studies. Across these 125 reviews, the median proportions of studies incorporated into at least one meta-analysis for any outcome and for the main outcome were 74% (interquartile range [IQR] 0–100%) and 28% (IQR 0–71%), respectively. Fifty-one reviews (41%) could not conduct a meta-analysis for the main outcome, mostly because fewer than two included studies measured the outcome (21/51 reviews) or the specific measurements for the outcome were inconsistent (16/51 reviews). Conclusions Outcome choice during systematic reviews can lead to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses. Core outcome sets and improved reporting of outcomes can help solve some of these problems.

Clinicians need to better understand the value of computed tomography (CT) imaging and nonsurgical treatment options to manage acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.To evaluate CT imaging, outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis, antibiotic treatment, and interventional radiology for patients with complicated diverticulitis.MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 1990 through 16 November 2020.Existing systematic reviews of CT imaging accuracy, as well as randomized trials and adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies reporting clinical or patient-centered outcomes.6 researchers extracted study data and risk of bias, which were verified by an independent researcher. The team assessed strength of evidence across studies.Based on moderate-strength evidence, CT imaging is highly accurate for diagnosing acute diverticulitis. For patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, 6 studies provide low-strength evidence that initial outpatient and inpatient management have similar risks for recurrence or elective surgery, but they provide insufficient evidence regarding other outcomes. Also, for patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, 5 studies comparing antibiotics versus no antibiotics provide low-strength evidence that does not support differences in risks for treatment failure, elective surgery, recurrence, posttreatment complications, and other outcomes. Evidence is insufficient to determine choice of antibiotic regimen (7 studies) or effect of percutaneous drainage (2 studies).The evidence base is mostly of low strength. Studies did not adequately assess heterogeneity of treatment effect.Computed tomography imaging is accurate for diagnosing acute diverticulitis. For patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis, no differences in outcomes were found between outpatient and inpatient care. Avoidance of antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis may be safe for most patients. The evidence is too sparse for other evaluated questions.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020151246).

Background Conducting systematic reviews (“reviews”) requires a great deal of effort and resources. Making data extracted during reviews available publicly could offer many benefits, including reducing unnecessary duplication of effort, standardizing data, supporting analyses to address secondary research questions, and facilitating methodologic research. Funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) is a free, web-based, open-source, data management and archival platform for reviews. Our specific objectives in this paper are to describe (1) the current extent of usage of SRDR and (2) the characteristics of all projects with publicly available data on the SRDR website. Methods We examined all projects with data made publicly available through SRDR as of November 12, 2019. We extracted information about the characteristics of these projects. Two investigators extracted and verified the data. Results SRDR has had 2552 individual user accounts belonging to users from 80 countries. Since SRDR’s launch in 2012, data have been made available publicly for 152 of the 735 projects in SRDR (21%), at a rate of 24.5 projects per year, on average. Most projects are in clinical fields (144/152 projects; 95%); most have evaluated interventions (therapeutic or preventive) (109/152; 72%). The most frequent health areas addressed are mental and behavioral disorders (31/152; 20%) and diseases of the eye and ocular adnexa (23/152; 15%). Two-thirds of the projects (104/152; 67%) were funded by AHRQ, and one-sixth (23/152; 15%) are Cochrane reviews. The 152 projects each address a median of 3 research questions (IQR 1–5) and include a median of 70 studies (IQR 20–130). Conclusions Until we arrive at a future in which the systematic review and broader research communities are comfortable with the accuracy of automated data extraction, re-use of data extracted by humans has the potential to help reduce redundancy and costs. The 152 projects with publicly available data through SRDR, and the more than 15,000 studies therein, are freely available to researchers and the general public who might be working on similar reviews or updates of reviews or who want access to the data for decision-making, meta-research, or other purposes.

Objective Summarize the psychometric properties of functional, ambulatory, and quality of life instruments among adult lower limb amputees, highlighting evidence deemed generalizable to the United States Medicare population. Data Sources Six databases and existing systematic reviews through October 30, 2017. Searches included terms for lower limb amputation or prostheses and outcome measures in humans, without language restriction. Study Selection We included peer-reviewed studies of at least 20 adults (≥18 years) with lower limb amputation. Eligible studies reported on psychometric properties of functional, ambulatory, or quality of life instruments. Fifty-three of 425 retrieved articles (12%) met criteria. Data Extraction Study characteristics and psychometric property data (validity, reliability, responsiveness, minimum detectable change, minimal important difference, or floor or ceiling effect) were extracted into a customized form based on standardized criteria. All extracted data were confirmed by 2 experts in systematic review and rehabilitation outcome measurement. Instruments were categorized regarding having been validated and found reliable. Other reported psychometric properties were recorded. Studies were also assessed for applicability to the Medicare population based on age and amputation etiology (dysvascular). Data Synthesis Fifty-six studies (in 53 articles) reported psychometric properties of 50 instruments. There is evidence for both validity and reliability for 30 instruments, 17 of which have evidence that was deemed generalizable to the Medicare population. Most of the remaining instruments have evidence of either validity or reliability, but not both. Twelve instruments have been assessed specifically among lower limb amputees prior to prosthesis prescription. Thirteen instruments have been assessed regarding their predictive properties for future outcomes. Conclusions Numerous instruments assessing ambulation, function, quality of life, and other patient-centered outcomes have evidence of validity and reliability for adults with lower limb amputations. Researchers and clinicians should use validated, reliable instruments when feasible. Many existing and new instruments require validation for use with lower limb amputees.

The epidemiological evidence supporting putative associations between air pollution and health-related outcomes continues to grow at an accelerated pace with a considerable heterogeneity and with varying consistency based on the outcomes assessed, the examined surveillance system, and the geographic region. We aimed to evaluate the strength of this evidence base, to identify robust associations as well as to evaluate effect variation. An overview of reviews (umbrella review) methodology was implemented. PubMed and Scopus were systematically screened (inception-3/2020) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the association between air pollutants, including CO, NO

INTRODUCTION Venous serum and plasma are optimal specimens for serological testing but may be logistically infeasible. Dried blood spots (DBS) are a feasible alternative, provided results are adequately sensitive and specific. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DBS to measure IgG and IgM antibodies for vaccine-preventable diseases and compare test validity of DBS with venous blood. AREAS COVERED In October 2020, we searched seven databases for peer-reviewed studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of DBS specimens compared with serum in detecting antibodies to VPDs in humans. We extracted data and assessed risk of bias in all included studies. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals for each index-reference test comparison. We narratively synthesized the identified evidence on diagnostic accuracy and blood collection and processing methods for DBS. Studies on measles and rubella IgG and IgM were the most frequently identified and reported generally high sensitivity and specificity. EXPERT OPINION Lack of standardization in collection, storage, and testing methods limited systematic comparison across studies. Our findings indicate a need for additional validation studies on the diagnostic accuracy of DBS to expand their use in serological surveillance. We recommend practical considerations to improve standardized reporting for DBS validation studies.

Women undergoing autologous reconstruction (AR) after mastectomy for breast cancer and their surgeons must make decisions regarding timing of the AR and choose among various flap types. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of (1) timing of AR relative to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and (2) various flap types for AR.We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.We screened 15,936 citations. Twelve mostly high risk of bias studies, including three randomized controlled trials and nine nonrandomized comparative studies met criteria (total N = 31,833 patients). No studies addressed timing of AR relative to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Six flap types were compared, but conclusions were feasible for only the comparison between transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. The choice of either flap may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts and comparable risk of necrosis (low SoE for both outcomes), but TRAM flaps probably pose a greater risk of harm to the area of flap harvest (abdominal bulge/hernia and need for surgical repair) (moderate SoE).Evidence regarding details for AR is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research among diverse populations of women is needed for the issue of timing of AR and for comparisons among flap types.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids compared with placebo, artificial tears, other steroidal or non‐steroidal therapies, or a combination of therapies for dry eye disease.

ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes in published core outcome sets with the outcomes recommended in corresponding guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), matched by health condition.DesignCross sectional analysis.SettingUS and Europe.PopulationSample of core outcome sets related to drugs, devices, and gene therapy that involved patients in the consensus process, published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019; and corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents.Main outcome measuresThe extent of matches between outcomes included within core outcome sets and those recommended in corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents were assessed. Matches were considered to be general (ie, non-specific) or specific (ie, exact). General matches were assessed to determine whether the core outcome set or guidance document outcome was narrower.ResultsRelevant guidance documents were found for for 38 (39%) of 98 eligible published core outcome sets. Among outcomes in core outcome sets, medians of 70% (interquartile range 48-86%) and 52% (33-77%) were matches with outcomes recommended in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. Medians of 46% (27-68%) and 26% (18-46%) were specific matches with outcomes in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. When outcomes were generally matched, the outcomes from core outcome sets were more frequently narrower than the regulatory outcomes (83% and 75% for EMA and FDA, respectively).ConclusionGreater adoption of, and reference to, core outcome sets in regulatory guidance documents can encourage clinical trialists, especially those in industry, to measure and report consistent and agreed outcomes and improve the quality of guidance. Given the overlap between outcomes in core outcome sets and regulatory guidance, and given that most core outcome sets now involve patients in the consensus process, these sets could serve as a useful resource for regulators when recommending outcomes for studies evaluating regulated products. Developers are encouraged to appraise recommended outcomes in salient regulatory documents when planning a core outcome set.

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

Objectives. This systematic review evaluates breast reconstruction options for women after mastectomy for breast cancer (or breast cancer prophylaxis). We addressed six Key Questions (KQs): (1) implant-based reconstruction (IBR) versus autologous reconstruction (AR), (2) timing of IBR and AR in relation to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, (3) comparisons of implant materials, (4) comparisons of anatomic planes for IBR, (5) use versus nonuse of human acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) during IBR, and (6) comparisons of AR flap types. Data sources and review methods. We searched Medline®, Embase®, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL®, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 23, 2021, to identify comparative and single group studies. We extracted study data into the Systematic Review Data Repository Plus (SRDR+). We assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020193183). Results. We found 8 randomized controlled trials, 83 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 69 single group studies. Risk of bias was moderate to high for most studies. KQ1: Compared with IBR, AR is probably associated with clinically better patient satisfaction with breasts and sexual well-being but comparable general quality of life and psychosocial well-being (moderate SoE, all outcomes). AR probably poses a greater risk of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (moderate SoE), but IBR probably poses a greater risk of reconstructive failure in the long term (1.5 to 4 years) (moderate SoE) and may pose a greater risk of breast seroma (low SoE). KQ 2: Conducting IBR either before or after radiation therapy may result in comparable physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and patient satisfaction with breasts (all low SoE), and probably results in comparable risks of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE). We found no evidence addressing timing of IBR or AR in relation to chemotherapy or timing of AR in relation to radiation therapy. KQ 3: Silicone and saline implants may result in clinically comparable patient satisfaction with breasts (low SoE). There is insufficient evidence regarding double lumen implants. KQ 4: Whether the implant is placed in the prepectoral or total submuscular plane may not be associated with risk of infections that are not explicitly implant related (low SoE). There is insufficient evidence addressing the comparisons between prepectoral and partial submuscular and between partial and total submuscular planes. KQ 5: The evidence is inconsistent regarding whether human ADM use during IBR impacts physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, or satisfaction with breasts. However, ADM use probably increases the risk of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE) and may increase the risk of infections not explicitly implant related (low SoE). Whether or not ADM is used probably is associated with comparable risks of seroma and unplanned repeat surgeries for revision (moderate SoE for both), and possibly necrosis (low SoE). KQ 6: AR with either transverse rectus abdominis (TRAM) or deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts (low SoE), but TRAM flaps probably increase the risk of harms to the area of flap harvest (moderate SoE). AR with either DIEP or latissimus dorsi flaps may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts (low SoE), but there is insufficient evidence regarding thromboembolic events and no evidence regarding other surgical complications. Conclusion. Evidence regarding surgical breast reconstruction options is largely insufficient or of only low or moderate SoE. New high-quality research is needed, especially for timing of IBR and AR in relation to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, for comparisons of implant materials, and for comparisons of anatomic planes of implant placement.