Search

To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two reviewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items.Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.

The aim of this study was to examine the most effective delivery format of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on insomnia in cancer patients.We searched five databases up to February 2021 for randomized clinical trials that compared CBT-I with inactive or active controls for insomnia in cancer patients. Outcomes were insomnia severity, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and total sleep time (TST). Pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model were applied for data analyses.Sixteen unique trials including 1523 participants met inclusion criteria. Compared with inactive control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (mean differences [MD] = -4.98 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.82 to -4.14), SOL (MD = -12.29 min, 95%CI: -16.48 to -8.09), and WASO (MD = -16.58 min, 95%CI: -22.00 to -11.15), while increasing sleep efficiency (MD = 7.62%, 95%CI: 5.82% to 9.41%) at postintervention. Compared with active control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (MD = -2.75 points, 95%CI: -4.28 to -1.21), SOL (MD = -13.56 min, 95%CI: -18.93 to -8.18), and WASO (MD = -6.99 min, 95%CI: -11.65 to -2.32) at postintervention. These effects diminished in short-term follow-up and almost disappeared in long-term follow-up. Most of the results were rated as "moderate" to "low" certainty of evidence. Network meta-analysis showed that group CBT-I had an increase in sleep efficiency of 10.61%, an increase in TST of 21.98 min, a reduction in SOL of 14.65 min, and a reduction in WASO of 24.30 min, compared with inactive control at postintervention, with effects sustained at short-term follow-up.CBT-I is effective for the management of insomnia in cancer patients postintervention, with diminished effects in short-term follow-up. Group CBT-I is the preferred choice based on postintervention and short-term effects. The low quality of evidence and limited sample size demonstrate the need for robust evidence from high-quality, large-scale trials providing long-term follow-up data.

Background Different techniques have been reported to prevent perineal lacerations, but the effects of the use of lubricant have been unclear and is still subject of debate. Objective To assess the effect of lubricants on reducing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery. Search strategy PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), WanFang databases, ClinicalTrials.gov in 25 June 2021. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials published in English or Chinese that compared the vaginal application of lubricant with standard care in women with cephalic presentation at vaginal delivery were included . Data collection and analysis Two independent reviewers selected eligible trials and extracted data on perineal trauma, duration of the second-stage labor, postpartum hemorrhage and Apgar score for meta-analysis. Main results Nineteen trials enrolling 5445 pregnant women were included. Compared with standard care, women using lubricants had a lower incidence of perineal trauma (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.93), second-degree perineal laceration (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.82) and episiotomy (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.96), had a shorter duration of the second-stage labor (MD -13.72 minutes, 95%CI -22.68 to -4.77). Subgroup analysis indicated that women with obstetric gel had a shorter duration of the second-stage (MD -16.9 minutes, 95%CI -27.03 to -6.78 vs MD -8.38 minutes, 95%CI -11.11 to -5.65; P interaction=0.02) when compared with liquid wax. Conclusions Compared with standard care, lubricants could reduce the incidence of perineal trauma, especially second-degree perineal laceration, and shorten the duration of the second-stage labor.

Humanitarian crises affect communities and people across the world, causing high levels of mortality and malnutrition, leading to the spread of diseases epidemics and health emergencies, and arresting economic growth. Several causes may trigger a humanitarian crisis: political events, such as armed conflicts, coups, and ethnic and religious persecution, and environmental catastrophes, such as floods, earthquakes and typhoons. This review looks at economic development interventions, such as livelihoods programmes, market support programmes, and local area development projects. Economic development interventions support economic development in the area in which humanitarian emergencies occur. It focuses on interventions and programmes that aim to bridge the transition from emergency response to the development of local economic systems post-conflict and post-disaster in low- and middle-income countries.

Humanitarian crises caused by political events and environmental catastrophes forcibly displaced 82.4 million people around the world at the end of 2020. Many conflicts continue for several years, reconstruction can take a long time, and people may anyway be unwilling to return to hazardous environments. Displaced people may remain in their new locations for months or even years, not days or weeks. In response, economic development interventions for displaced populations have become more popular. This includes interventions that invest in the economic development of the host community, and so provide opportunities for those living in nearby camps. Economic development interventions provide a livelihood for displaced people and so reduce reliance on their external support, build or utilise their skills, and so reduce the chances of a culture of dependency and preserve the dignity of the displaced population. Investments in the host population can provide economic opportunities for displaced people and reduce the resentment which may arise if local people see substantial relief aid going into the camp and they get nothing. This brief summarises findings from a systematic review of economic development interventions in humanitarian settings.

Objectives To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. Study Design and Setting A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10–18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%). Conclusion This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.

We aimed to determine the effects of different exercise modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until July 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on exercise in adults with T2DM. Paired reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.A total of 106 RCTs that enroled eight exercise modalities with 7438 patients were included. Six exercise modalities, except unsupervised aerobic/resistance exercise, significantly reduced glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), with mean differences (MDs) ranging from 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-1.08) to 0.34 (95% CI: 0.17-0.52), low to high certainty, in comparison with no exercise. The evidence of low to moderate certainty showed that supervised aerobic/resistance exercise improved glycaemic control, body weight, blood pressure, and blood lipid profiles compared with no exercise. Flexibility exercise may be associated with glycaemic control (HbA1c: MD = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.34-1.08); fasting plasma glucose (MD = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.78-2.17), and weight loss (MD = 1.80, 95% CI: 0.85-2.75) compared with controls, but not blood pressure and lipid profiles. Balance exercise showed the largest benefit in improving total cholesterol (MD = 52.81, 95% CI: 28.47-77.16) and low certainty. We found no significant differences between exercises and the triacylglycerol (TG) level.Overall, our network meta-analyses support the recommendation for exercise in patients with T2DM, especially supervised exercises. Limited evidence supports the benefits of flexibility and balance exercises. The effectiveness of exercise modalities for TG reduction remains unclear.

We aimed to appraise the methodological quality of existing guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument and to identify the concordance of different recommendations.PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and clinical practice guideline websites were systematically searched. Four reviewers independently assessed the guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. The mean score of each AGREE II item, number of recommendations, strength of recommendation, and level of evidence were calculated. Agreement among reviewers was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient.We identified 23 guidelines from 7,127 records. The overall agreement among reviewers was considered good (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.96). The mean scores of the six AGREE domains were scope and purpose, 60.1% (95% CI, 55.9-64.1); stakeholder involvement, 40.7% (95% CI, 35.4-46.0); rigor of development, 44.7% (95% CI, 42.2-47.2); clarity and presentation, 69.8% (95% CI, 65.3-74.3); applicability, 37.2% (95% CI, 31.8-42.6); and editorial independence, 47.8% (95% CI, 39.0-56.7). Only 2/23 ERAS guidelines were considered applicable without modifications.The methodological quality of the ERAS management guidelines varied and was generally low. Future guideline development should adhere to the use of the AGREE II instrument and the GRADE system to better guide clinical practice and improve individualized treatment strategies.

Most women suffer from perineal trauma during childbirth, whether it is natural tears or episiotomy.To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of different PFMT relevant strategies in the prevention of perineal trauma.PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG DATABASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 1 July 2021.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PFMT relevant prevention strategies for preventing perineal trauma during childbirth.Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Relative treatment effects were estimated using network meta-analysis (NMA).Of 12 632 citations searched, 21 RCTs were included. Comparing with usual care, "PFMT combine with perineal massage" and PFMT alone showed more superiority in intact perineum (RR = 5.37, 95% CI: 3.79 to 7.60, moderate certainty; RR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.34-4.97, moderate certainty, respectively), episiotomy (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.49, very low certainty; RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.90, very low certainty, respectively), and OASIS (RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.78, moderate certainty; RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85, high certainty, respectively). "PFMT combine with perineal massage" showed superiority in reducing perineal tear (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.85, moderate certainty).In view of the results, antenatal "PFMT combine with perineal massage" and PFMT were effective strategies for the prevention of perineal trauma.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to grow worldwide, and systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on COVID-19 can efficiently guide evidence-based clinical practice. However, SRs/MAs with weaknesses can mislead clinical practice and pose harm to patients, and too many useless SRs/MAs could pose confusion and waste sources. A "living" overview of SRs/MAs aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarizing the highest-level evidence of COVID-19, that can help evidence-users to quickly identify trusted evidence to guide the practice. This study aims to systematically give an overview SRs/MAs of COVID-19, assess their quality, and identify the best synthesis of evidence. Methods Databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) and WanFang were systematically searched on May 1, 2020 using relevant terms for identify SRs/MAs related to COVID-19. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by independent reviewers, and results will be crosschecked. The authoritative tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA and its extensions) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs, and potential influence factors will be explored. The consistency of conclusions will be compared among reviews and the best evidence will be summarized. In addition, we will conduct exploratory meta-analyses (MAs) of individual studies when applicable. Data will be reported as number with (or) percentage, risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the specific results. R3.6.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 will be used to analyze and manage data. Results The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Discussion In this study, we will present for the first time, an overview of SRs/MAs, which provides a comprehensive, dynamic evidence landscape on prevalence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19.

Despite common, serious, costly, and often fatal conditions affecting up to 50 % of older patients, delirium is often unrecognized and overlooked. We examine the accuracy of the 4AT for detecting older patients with delirium.We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 and updated to January 2022. Four independently reviewers extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using a bivariate random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 15.1 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software.Eleven studies with 2789 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.66 (95 % CI: 4.12-10.74) and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively. Deeks' test indicated no significant publication bias (t = 0.83, P = 0.43). Univariable meta-regression showed that patient selection and flow and timing significantly influenced the pooled sensitivity (P 0.05), settings significantly influenced the pooled specificity (P 0.05).Our meta-analysis demonstrates that 4AT is a sensitive and specific screening tool for delirium in older patients. Its brevity and simplicity support its use in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-poor settings. Clinicians should come to a conclusion based largely on the 4AT findings in conjunction with clinical judgment.

Dignity is a vitally important aspect of the lives of advanced cancer patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of dignity therapy in this patient population.We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing dignity therapy versus standard care for patients with advanced cancer in five comprehensive databases (March 2019), two clinical trial registries and one gray literature database (August 2019). The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0. We used GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan version 5.3. Outcomes of interest included anxiety, depression, dignity-related distress and quality of life (QoL).Ten trials evaluating 904 patients (control, 449; experimental, 455) were identified. Six trials included patients with different types of advanced cancer, and four trials included patients with a single advanced cancer (lung cancer [20%], breast cancer [10%], and hepatocellular carcinoma [10%]). Compared with the standard care, dignity therapy decreased the score of anxiety, depression, and dignity-related distress of the advanced cancer patients (SMD = -1.07, 95% CI: [-1.57, -0.58], p .05; SMD = -1.31, 95% CI: [-1.92, -0.70], p .05; MD = -7.30, 95% CI: [- 12.04, - 2.56], p .05). In addition, no significant differences were found in the patient's QoL (p .05).Very low certainty evidence demonstrated that dignity therapy might be a promising treatment, especially in reducing anxiety and depression in advanced cancer patients.

What is known and objective An increasing number of targeted drugs have been used to treat advanced or metastatic gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). However, the optimal treatment efficacy of these drugs is still controversial. The aims of this study are to systematically summarize the efficacy and safety of current targeted drugs for advanced or metastatic GC and GEJC. Methods PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials were searched for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on GC and GEJC up to December 2019. Additionally, we updated the literature search from Jan, 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. Narrative and quantitative analysis were performed to analyse the efficacy and safety. STATA 15.1 was used to identify publication bias, and the SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) curve was conducted to rank the treatments for each outcome. Results A total of 27 RCTs with 9295 GC and GEJC patients treated by 19 drugs were included. SUCRA showed that regorafenib was the most likely to improve patients' progression-free survival (96.4%), followed by apatinib (90.7%), nivolumab (82.4%), everolimus (76.5%) and pertuzumab (68.5%). Meanwhile, apatinib (92.4%) was most likely to improve overall survival, followed by nivolumab (87.9%), regorafenib (72.5%), olaparib (67.7%) and lapatinib (63.2%). Additionally, neutropenia, diarrhoea and fatigue were the most common adverse events caused by these drugs, followed by pain, nausea, decreased appetite, anaemia and vomiting. What is new and conclusion Regorafenib and nivolumab have higher efficacy and tolerability and are the most advantageous for advanced GC and GEJC. Moreover, apatinib has higher efficacy but lower tolerability. Everolimus and pertuzumab combined with chemotherapy have best secondary higher efficacy for progression-free survival and good tolerability. Lapatinib and olaparib combined with chemotherapy have moderate efficacy for overall survival and good tolerability.

Recommendations for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may be inconsistent, and little is known about their quality. Our aim in this study was to systematically review the consistency of globally available CPGs containing nutritional recommendations for T2DM and to assess the quality of their methodology and reporting.PubMed, China Biology Medicine and 4 main guideline websites were searched. Four researchers independently assessed quality of the methodology and reporting using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, second edition (AGREE II) instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist.Fifteen CPGs include 65 nutritional recommendations with 6 sections: 1) body weight and energy balance; 2) dietary eating patterns; 3) macronutrients; 4) micronutrients and supplements; 5) alcohol; and 6) specific, functional foods. Current nutritional recommendations for patients with T2DM on specific elements and amounts are not completely consistent in different CPGs and fail to assign the specific supporting evidence and strength of recommendations. To use nutritional recommendations to guide and manage patients with T2DM, it is important to address the current challenges by establishing a solid evidence base and indicating the strength of recommendations. Overall, 8 CPGs classified as recommended for clinical practice used AGREE II. Fifteen CPGs adhere to60% of RIGHT checklist items.High-quality evidence is needed to potentially close knowledge gaps and strengthen the recommendation. The AGREE II instrument along with the RIGHT checklist should be endorsed and used by CPG developers to ensure higher quality and adequate use of their products.

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation.Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA).Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention.The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.

This review compared the efficacy and acceptability of different delivery formats for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in insomnia. We searched five databases for randomized clinical trials that compared one CBT-I delivery format against another format or control conditions for insomnia in adults. We used pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model to synthesize data. A total of 61 unique trials including 11,571 participants compared six CBT-I delivery formats with four control conditions. At post-intervention, with low to high certainty evidence, individual, group, guided self-help, digital assisted, and unguided self-help CBT-I could significantly increase sleep efficiency and total sleep time (TST) and reduce sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and insomnia severity compared with treatment as usual (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.81%-12.45%; MD range for TST: 16.14-33.96 min; MD range for SOL: -22.42 to -13.81 min; MD range for WASO: -40.84 to -19.48 min; MD range for insomnia severity: -6.40 to -3.93) and waitlist (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.68%-12.32%; MD range for TST: 12.67-30.49 min; MD range for SOL: -19.07 to -10.46 min; MD range for WASO: -47.10 to -19.15 min; MD range for insomnia severity: -7.59 to -5.07). The effects of different CBT-I formats persisted at short-term follow-up (4 wk-6 mo). Individual, group, and digital assisted CBT-I delivery formats would be the more appropriate choices for insomnia in adults, based on post-intervention and short-term effects. Further trials are needed to investigate the long-term effects of different CBT-I formats.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the duration of breastfeeding on the intelligence of children. Materials and Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched to identify studies that investig...

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: To compare different modalities of renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults with acute kidney injury. Data Sources: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 25 May, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different renal replacement therapy modalities in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Study Selection: Ten reviewers (working in pairs) independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data Extraction: We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. The primary analysis was a four-node analysis: continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. The secondary analysis subdivided these four nodes into nine nodes including continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodiafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis with hemofiltration, slow efficiency extended dialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration, and peritoneal dialysis. We set the minimal important difference threshold for mortality as 2.5% (relative difference, 0.04). Data Synthesis: Thirty randomized controlled trials (n = 3,774 patients) proved eligible. There may be no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93–1.18; low certainty), whereas continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated a possible increase in mortality compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85–1.33; low certainty) and peritoneal dialysis (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92–1.49; low certainty). Continuous renal replacement therapy may increase renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91–1.45; low certainty), whereas both continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis may be worse for renal recovery compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis and peritoneal dialysis (low certainty). Peritoneal dialysis was probably associated with the shortest duration of renal support and length of ICU stay compared with other interventions (low certainty for most comparisons). Slow efficiency extended dialysis may be associated with shortest length of hospital stay (low or moderate certainty for all comparisons) and days of mechanical ventilation (low certainty for all comparisons) compared with other interventions. There was no difference between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in terms of hypotension (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72–1.16; moderate certainty) or other complications of therapy, but an increased risk of hypotension and bleeding was seen with both modalities compared with peritoneal dialysis (low or moderate certainty). Complications of slow efficiency extended dialysis were not sufficiently reported to inform comparisons. Conclusions: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest there is no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis although continuous renal replacement therapy may increases renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis. Slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration may be the most effective intervention at reducing mortality. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with good efficacy, and the least number of complications however may not be practical in all settings. Importantly, all conclusions are based on very low to moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision. At the very least, ICU clinicians should feel comfortable that the differences between continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and, where clinically appropriate, peritoneal dialysis are likely small, and any of these modalities is a reasonable option to employ in critically ill patients.

Introduction Kidney transplant recipients are at increased susceptibility to many viral infections leading to justifiable anxiety about the effects of COVID-19. Methods We performed literature searches from multiple resources in April and August 2020 for relevant English and Chinese literature. Abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review with data extraction of reports that included at least 20 kidney transplant recipients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and completed outcomes. Results Twenty studies had sufficient data which we have summarised. Studies were predominantly descriptive and came from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, UK, and USA. Quality assessment demonstrated limitations in selection of comparison groups and controlling for additional factors. Mortality rates from published studies were variable. Based on early data early from Spain, 46% of patients who developed COVID-19 within 60 days of transplantation died. Acute kidney injury was common, and mycophenolate was discontinued in most patients. Conclusion Given the rapid global spread of COVID-19, reliable evidence is needed to inform public health policies. Hospitalised kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 are at a high risk of death in early reports but interpretation of this data requires caution as studies were susceptible to period effects. Reassuringly, the quality of observational data is improving. Detailed and comprehensive data collection through linked registries will be necessary to conduct accurate analyses of risk factors for adverse outcomes, not least given the risks of stopping immunosuppression. This report highlights the early mortality excess in transplant recipients but medium and longer-term outcomes remain uncertain and merit careful investigation., Graphical abstract

Background: Delirium is a complex syndrome characterized by a disturbance in attention and awareness, with a prevalence of 10-20% in patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). Screening tools have been developed to identify delirium in the ED, but their accuracy of screening remains unclear. To address this challenge, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to systematically review the accuracy of delirium screening tools currently being used to assess ED patients.Methods: PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Studies involving ED inpatients which compared diagnostic tools with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria as a reference standard were included. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 scale. We conducted a conventional meta-analysis for each screening tool. Then we used network meta-analysis method to calculate the relative sensitivity and specificity among the diagnostic tests. The diagnostic accuracies were then ranked through the superiority index.Results: Thirteen studies included six screening tools. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) were 0.71 and 0.98, and for 4AT (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test 4, Acute change) were 0.83 and 0.93, respectively. The other four tools used were only reported in one or two studies. Their sensitivity ranged from 0.70 to 1.00, and their specificity ranged from 0.64 to 0.99. Moreover, network meta-analysis indicated that the CAM and 4AT had a greater superiority index and a higher diagnostic accuracy.Conclusions: The available data suggested that both the CAM and 4AT can be used as efficient screening tools for the ED patients.

Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 ( BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

We aim to systematically review the existing guidelines on physical activity for T2DM and assess the consistency of their recommendations, methodological quality, and reporting quality. We performed a literature search on PubMed, China Biology Medicine disc, and four main guideline databases in order to identify existing T2DM guidelines. We then evaluated the methodological and reporting qualities of the guidelines using the AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT checklist. Fifteen guidelines were included in total, with eight of these (53.33%) assessed being “recommended” and five graded as having good reporting quality. A total of 30 physical activity recommendations were extracted. Fifteen recommendations reported the levels of evidence, and of these, five were found to be based on a high quality of evidence. Aerobic exercise at least 3 days per week was recommended by most guidelines (10/15, 66.67%). Eight guidelines (53.33%) recommended resistance exercise, while combined aerobic and resistance exercise was recommended in three of the guidelines (20.0%). Only two guidelines recommended supervised exercise, and one recommended flexibility exercise. Four of the guidelines (26.67%) solely recommended physical activity or exercise, but with no added details. The quality of the guidelines concerning physical activity for T2DM was found to be moderate to low and varied substantially. Recommendations regarding physical activity for T2DM are not very specific or clear and remain incompletely consistent, while the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were seldom reported. Our findings suggest a need for guidelines for diabetes based on high levels of evidence.

Acupuncture is an alternative therapy for Parkinson's disease (PD), but its efficacy and safety are controversial. This overview aimed to summarize the existing evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) in order to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for PD.Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception until July 2019. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklists were used to assess evidence quality and methodological quality, respectively. The outcomes of study were calculated using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.A total of 12 SRs/MAs were included. All 12 SRs/MAs had more than one critical weakness in AMSTAR 2 and were considered of critically low methodological quality. The quality of evidence was unsatisfactory according to the GRADE checklist. Meta-analyses showed that acupuncture combined with drug for the treatment of PD can significantly improve the total effectiveness rate compared with drug alone (RR = 1.25, 95 % CI 1.16-1.34, P 0.001). It was also found that acupuncture combined with drug significantly improved the UPDRS I-IV total summed scores (WMD=-6.18, 95 % CI -10.32 to -2.04, P 0.001) and Webster scores (WMD=-4.20, 95 % CI -7.59 to -0.81, P 0.001).Acupuncture might improve the UPDRS score, Webster score, and total effective rate in treatment of PD. It might be a safe and useful adjunctive treatment for patients with PD. However, we should interpret the findings of these reviews with caution, considering the overall limited methodological and reporting quality.

To assess the efficacy of electro-acupuncture (EA) relative to sham electro-acupuncture (sham EA) in treating chronic severe functional constipation (CSFC).A comprehensive search for relevant studies published between January 1, 1951 and May 14, 2020 was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Web of Science, and EMbase. Two investigators independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. The software Endnote X9 was used for screening articles, and the Review Manager 5.3 for analyzing data.The meta-analyses involved 6 studies and 1457 individuals. The pooled results favored the EA group for the increase of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week in the fourth week (MD = 0.80, P = 0.001) during treatment, and further improved in the eight weeks (MD = 1.25, P0.001). During the follow-up period, significant changes in CSBMs per week were seen in the experimental group (MD = 1.38, P = 0.008); the effect decreased in the twelfth week (MD = 0.87, P0.001). There was no significant difference in the Bristol stool scale score between the two groups in the fourth week (MD = 0.40, P = 0.08), but significant differences were observed in the eighth week (MD = 0.40, P = 0.03). A significant reduction in patient assessment of constipation quality of life (PAC-QOL) score were observed in the EA group during treatment (SMD = -0.83, P0.001). No serious adverse events were reported.EA had favorable effects on CSFC, and the longer the treatment duration was, the better was the effect, but the effect showed a certain period of validity. However, the results may be influenced by the clinical heterogeneity of acupuncture points, depth of needling, intensity, and frequency of EA.

ObjectiveTo determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.ResultsSeventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).ConclusionsFor higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Background: Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated by published individual patient data meta-analysis and Cochrane systematic review. However, there is no consensus on which is the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Present network meta-analysis aims to compare the differences of effect between all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in improving overall survival and disease-free survival, and to rate the certainty of evidence from present network meta-analysis. Methods: We will conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian method and according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone. We will assess the risk of bias of individual RCTs using a modified version of Cochrane tool. We will also use the advance of GRADE to rate the certainty of network meta-analysis. Data analysis will be performed with R-3.4.1 and WinBUGS software. Results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will firstly use both direct and indirect evidence to compare the differences of all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resected gastric cancer patients. This is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis, so the ethical approval and patient consent are not required.