Search

The incidence of non-malignant pleural effusions (NMPE) far outweighs that of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) and is estimated to be at least 3-fold higher. These so called "benign" effusions do not follow a "benign course" in many cases, with mortality rates matching and sometimes exceeding that of MPEs. In addition to the impact on patients, healthcare systems are significantly affected, with recent US epidemiological data demonstrating that 75% of resource allocation for pleural effusion management is spent on NMPEs (excluding empyema). Despite this significant burden of disease, and by existing at the junction of multiple medical specialties, reflecting a heterogenous constellation of medical conditions, NMPEs are rarely the focus of research or the subject of management guidelines. With this ERS Taskforce, we assembled a multi-specialty collaborative across eleven countries and three continents to provide a Statement based on systematic searches of the medical literature to highlight evidence in the management of the following clinical areas: a diagnostic approach to transudative effusions, heart failure, hepatic hydrothorax, end stage renal failure, benign asbestos related pleural effusion, post-surgical effusion and non-specific pleuritis., (Copyright ©The authors 2024. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Introduction: Expert opinion is widely used in clinical guidelines. No research has ever been conducted investigating the use of expert opinion in international infectious disease guidelines. This study aimed to create an analytical map by describing the prevalence and utilization of expert opinion in infectious disease guidelines and analyzing the methodological aspects of these guidelines., Methods: In this meta-epidemiological study, systematic searches in PubMed and Trip Medical Database were performed to identify clinical guidelines on infectious diseases, published between January 2018 and May 2023 in English, by international organizations. Data extracted included guideline characteristics, expert opinion utilization, and methodological details. Prevalence and rationale of expert opinion use were analyzed descriptively. Methodological differences between groups were analyzed with Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U Test., Results: The analysis covered 66 guidelines with 2296 recommendations, published/endorsed by 136 organizations. Most guidelines (79%) used systematic literature searches, 42% provided search strategies, and 38% presented screening flow diagrams and conducted risk of bias assessments. 48.5% of the guidelines allowed expert opinion, most of which included expert opinion as part of the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Guidelines allowing expert opinion, compared to those which do not, issued more recommendations per guideline (48.82 vs.19.13, p<0.001), and reported fewer screening flow diagrams (25% vs. 65%, p = 0.002), and less risk of bias assessments (19% vs.78%, p<0.001)., Conclusions: Expert opinion is utilized in half of assessed guidelines, often integrated into the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Its utilization varies considerably in methodology, form, and terminology between guidelines. These findings highlight a pressing need for additional research and guidance, to improve and advance the standardization of infectious disease guidelines., Competing Interests: BN: consulting services in guideline methodology for the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), outside the submitted work. BN is a member of the GRADE working group, outside the submitted work. LS: Is a member of the GRADE working group, outside the submitted work. IML: lecture honoraria from Thermofisher, Gilead, MSD and advisory board Fresenius Kabi, MaaT Pharma, Gilead, Biotest, Accelerate, bioMérieux, outside the submitted work. BL: is the president of the Hungarian Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology and Head of the Guideline Committee Working Group, outside the submitted work., (Copyright: © 2024 Nagavci et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The optimal management for spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) remains contentious, with various proposed approaches. This joint clinical practice guideline from the ERS, EACTS and ESTS societies provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of SP., Methods: This multidisciplinary Task Force addressed 12 key clinical questions on the management of pneumothorax, using ERS methodology for guideline development. Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase. Evidence was synthesised by conducting meta-analyses, if possible, or narratively. Certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). The Evidence to Decision framework was used to decide on the direction and strength of the recommendations., Results: The panel makes a conditional recommendation for conservative care of minimally symptomatic patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) who are clinically stable. We make a strong recommendation for needle aspiration over chest tube drain for initial PSP treatment. We make a conditional recommendation for ambulatory management for initial PSP treatment. We make a conditional recommendation for early surgical intervention for the initial treatment of PSP in patients who prioritise recurrence prevention. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for autologous blood patch in secondary SP patients with persistent air leak (PAL). The panel could not make recommendations for other interventions, including bronchial valves, suction, pleurodesis in addition to surgical resection or type of surgical pleurodesis., Conclusions: With this international guideline, the ERS, EACTS and ESTS societies provide clinical practice recommendations for SP management. We highlight evidence gaps for the management of PAL and recurrence prevention, with research recommendations made., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: R. Hallifax has received consulting fees from Rocket Medical UK and Cook Medical, and honoraria for educational talks from AstraZeneca. M. Keijzers has received consulting fees from Philips. Y.C.G. Lee received drainage kits from Rocket Medical PLC for patients participating in clinical trials. P. Licht has received personal honoraria from Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson. N. Maskell has received consulting fees and device support for clinical trials from Rocket Medical UK and BD. B. Nagavci acted as ERS methodologist. E. Roessner has received consultancy fees from Rivolution, lecture fees from Siemens Healthineers and AstraZeneca, and was Thoracic Domain chair, Council member and Task Force member of the Solitary Pulmonary Nodules Task Force for EACTS. N. Rahman has received consulting fees Rocket Medical UK and Cook Medical, and has received device support for clinical trials from Rocket Medical UK. P. Van Schil has received personal payments from BMS and Roche, institutional payment from Janssen, MSD and AstraZeneca, and is the treasurer of BACTS (Belgian Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery) and president-elect for IASLC (International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer). D. Waller has received lecture fees from Pulmonx and Medtronic. T. Walles has received a grant (WA 1649/5-2) for clinical study on surgical therapy for treatment of primary pneumothorax from the German Research Foundation, and is an assessor (unpaid) for the German Society of Thoracic Surgery. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (This article has been co-published with permission in the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and in the European Respiratory Journal. Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024. Published by European Respiratory Society. All rights reserved. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Background: Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation., Methods: A multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council., Results: Nine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements., Conclusions: This European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All declarations are outside the submitted work. Unless otherwise stated, authors do not make any relevant disclosures. A. Brunelli declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Ethicon, Medtronic, MSD and Roche. J. Chorostowska declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, Grifols, CSL Behring, Novartis, Chiesi, Celon Pharma, Adamed and Mero Biopharma. A. Devaraj declares consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Vicore and Brainomix, and personal stock/options in Brainomix. D. Deruysscher declares grants/honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Beigne and Philips. H. Prosch declares grants and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Siemens and MSD. A. Kerpel-Fronius declares honoraria from MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim, and conference expenses from Roche and Bracco. W. van Geffen is local PI for trials funded by MSD and Roche. H-U. Kauczor declares honoraria and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Philips, Siemens and MSD, and honoraria from Sanofi. P.M. Putora declares grants to his institution from AstraZeneca and Bayer. M-P. Revel declares honoraria from MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Bracco and Gleamer, grants from the French Ministry of Health and French Cancer Institute, and software from Aidence, Mevis, Coreline and Gleamer. R. Vliegenthart declares honoraria from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer, and research grants from the Dutch Cancer Foundation, Siemens Heathineers, the Dutch Heart Foundation and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. A. Snoeckx declares grants from the Foundation Agaist Cancer and the Flemish Cancer Society, and advisory board work for Agfa. G. Veronesi declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Medtronic and Roche, and grants from INAIL and IARC. D.R. Baldwin declares honoraria for speaking from Roche, MSD and AstraZeneca, and research grants from CRUK, NIHR, Innovate UK, Small Business Research Initiative, NHS Digital, NHS England, Roy Castle Lung Foundation, European Commission Horizon and Yourshire Cancer; and is advisor to the UK National Screening Committee., (This article has been co-published with permission in the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and in the European Respiratory Journal. Copyright © The authors 2023. Published by the European Respiratory Society. All rights reserved. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.)

Purpose: Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and whilst European and non-European guidelines are available for community-acquired pneumonia, there are no specific guidelines for sCAP., Methods: The European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) launched a task force to develop the first international guidelines for sCAP. The panel comprised a total of 18 European and four non-European experts, as well as two methodologists. Eight clinical questions for sCAP diagnosis and treatment were chosen to be addressed. Systematic literature searches were performed in several databases. Meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, whenever possible. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to decide on the direction and strength of recommendations., Results: Recommendations issued were related to diagnosis, antibiotics, organ support, biomarkers and co-adjuvant therapy. After considering the confidence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences of treatment, cost, feasibility, acceptability of the intervention and implications to health equity, recommendations were made for or against specific treatment interventions., Conclusions: In these international guidelines, ERS, ESICM, ESCMID, and ALAT provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for diagnosis, empirical treatment, and antibiotic therapy for sCAP, following the GRADE approach. Furthermore, current knowledge gaps have been highlighted and recommendations for future research have been made., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost effectiveness. This ERS Taskforce was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality lung cancer screening program., Method: A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies (see below). Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee., Results: Ten topics were identified representing key components of a screening program. The action on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked taskforce (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included ( e.g. pulmonary function measurement). Fifty-three statements were produced and areas for further research identified., Conclusion: This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high quality and effective program., (Copyright ©The authors 2023. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Objective: The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in sub-Saharan Africa (CEBHA+), a research network, aims to build capacities for evidence-based healthcare. Hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are two priority areas of the network, both are major causes of burden of disease in this region. This review aimed to: (1) identify existing evidence-based guidelines for HTN and DM, (2) map their recommendations and (3) assess their quality., Setting: Sub-Saharan Africa., Design: Scoping review., Methods: Systematic searches for evidence-based guidelines, developed with systematic review of evidence and certainty of evidence assessment, were undertaken in electronic databases and grey literature, and ministries of health of all countries in this region were contacted. Included guidelines were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool. Searches were conducted between 7 December 2021 and 14 January 2022. Results are presented descriptively., Results: 66 potentially relevant guidelines were identified, developed in 23, out of 49 sub-Saharan African countries. Of these, only two guidelines (on DM) reported the use of systematic review of evidence and certainty of evidence assessment. Their quality appraisal showed that both have relatively similar scores on domains of AGREE-II, with higher scores on Scope and Purpose and Clarity and Presentation domains, and lower on Stakeholder Involvement, Applicability, Rigour of Development and Editorial independence domains. The overall scores of both guidelines were 50% and 58%, respectively., Conclusions: Less than half of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa developed and published their own guidelines for HTN or DM. The quality appraisal showed that the two included guidelines scored relatively low in several crucial domains of AGREE-II. Countries in this region could consider adopting or adapting already published high-quality recommendations, in order to facilitate a more efficient and faster development of much needed trustworthy evidence-based guidance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BN, IT and JM are members of the GRADE working group. JJM is the director of the Freiburg GRADE Centre. JLZN, BEB, JO, KG and OK have nothing to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks are well-known tools that enable guideline panels to structure the process of developing recommendations and making decisions in healthcare and public health. To date, they have not regularly been used for health policy-making. This article aims to illustrate the application of the GRADE EtD frameworks in the process of nutrition-related policy-making for a European country., Methods: Based on methodological guidance by the GRADE Working Group and the findings of our recently published scoping review, we illustrate the process of moving from evidence to recommendations, by applying the EtD frameworks to a fictitious example. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation based on energy density was chosen as an example application., Results: A fictitious guideline panel was convened by a national nutrition association to develop a population-level recommendation on SSB taxation aiming to reduce the burden of overweight and obesity. Exemplary evidence was summarized for each EtD criterion and conclusions were drawn based on all judgements made in relation to each criterion. As a result of the high priority to reduce the burden of obesity and because of the moderate desirable effects on health outcomes, but considering scarce or varying research evidence for other EtD criteria, the panel made a conditional recommendation for SSB taxation. Decision-makers may opt for conducting a pilot study prior to implementing the policy on a national level., Conclusions: GRADE EtD frameworks can be used by guideline panels to make the process of developing recommendations in the field of health policy more systematic, transparent and comprehensible., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Background: There is a little empirical evidence of the impact of pooling randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) on the certainty-of-evidence. To evaluate the hypothetical-scenario of pooling bodies-of-evidence from RCTs with matched bodies-of-evidence from CSs on the certainty-of-evidence., Methods: We extracted GRADE ratings of bodies-of-evidence from RCTs in Cochrane reviews, and rated the certainty-of-evidence from matched bodies-of-evidence from CSs. We then evaluated the impact of pooling both bodies-of-evidence on the overall certainty-of-evidence, and on individual GRADE domains., Results: Fourty-two pooled bodies-of-evidence were rated, ranging from very-low (bodies-of-evidence RCTs : 9.5%; bodies-of-evidence CSs : 40.5%; pooled-bodies-of-evidence: 0%) to low (bodies-of-evidence RCTs : 38.1%; bodies-of-evidence CSs : 45.2%; pooled-bodies-of-evidence: 19.1%), moderate (bodies-of-evidence RCTs : 33.4%; bodies-of-evidence CSs : 14.3%; pooled-bodies-of-evidence: 57.1%), and high (bodies-of-evidence RCTs : 19%; bodies-of-evidence CSs : 0%; pooled-bodies-of-evidence: 23.8%). Certainty-of-evidence was downgraded mostly for imprecision and risk of bias for bodies-of-evidence from RCTs, and for risk of bias and inconsistency for bodies-of-evidence from CSs. Pooling both bodies-of-evidence mitigates rating down for imprecision compared to bodies-of-evidence from RCTs and inconsistency compared to bodies-of-evidence from CSs., Conclusion: Our hypothetical study suggests that pooling both bodies-of-evidence would reduce the amount of very-low and low certainty-of-evidence ratings, but how to integrate RCTs and CSs and whether or not to pool these bodies-of-evidence requires proper guidance before systematic review authors or guideline developers should consider this approach., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: In recent years, long-term prescribing and use of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has increased in high-income countries. Yet existing uncertainties, controversies, and differing recommendations make the rationale for prolonged opioid use in CNCP unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of strong opioids with placebo or nonopioid therapy in CNCP, with a special focus on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Systematic literature searches were performed in 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) in July 2019 and updated by regular alerts until December 2020. We included 16 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials for CLBP and 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized studies) of opioids vs nonopioids for CNCP in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses were performed for efficacy, safety, and tolerability outcomes and subgroup analyses for treatment duration, study design, and opioid experience status. Very low to low certainty findings suggest that 4 to 15 weeks (short or intermediate term) opioid therapy in CLBP (compared with placebo) may cause clinically relevant reductions in pain but also more gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events, with likely no effect on disability. By contrast, long-term opioid therapy (≥6 months) in CNCP may not be superior to nonopioids in improving pain or disability or pain-related function but seems to be associated with more adverse events, opioid abuse or dependence, and possibly an increase in all-cause mortality. Our findings also underline the importance and need for well-designed trials assessing long-term efficacy and safety of opioids for CNCP and CLBP., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: The major reasons to treat sarcoidosis are to lower the morbidity and mortality risk or to improve quality of life (QoL). The indication for treatment varies depending on which manifestation is the cause of symptoms: lungs, heart, brain, skin or other manifestations. While glucocorticoids remain the first choice for initial treatment of symptomatic disease, prolonged use is associated with significant toxicity. Glucocorticoid-sparing alternatives are available. The presented treatment guidelines aim to provide guidance to physicians treating the very heterogenous sarcoidosis manifestations., Methods: A European Respiratory Society Task Force committee composed of clinicians, methodologists and patients with experience in sarcoidosis developed recommendations based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) methodology. The committee developed eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions and these were used to make specific evidence-based recommendations., Results: The Task Force committee delivered 12 recommendations for seven PICOs. These included treatment of pulmonary, cutaneous, cardiac and neurologic disease as well as fatigue. One PICO question regarding small-fibre neuropathy had insufficient evidence to support a recommendation. In addition to the recommendations, the committee provided information on how they use alternative treatments, when there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation., Conclusions: There are many treatments available to treat sarcoidosis. Given the diverse nature of the disease, treatment decisions require an assessment of organ involvement, risk for significant morbidity, and impact on QoL of the disease and treatment., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: R.P. Baughman reports grants from Gilead, Genentech, Bayer, aTyr and Bellephron, grants and personal fees for consultancy from Novartis, personal fees for consultancy from Methial, grants and personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Mallinckrodt, grants and personal fees for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Valeyre reports personal fees for advisory board work from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Korsten reports grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Chugai, Novartis Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Gilead, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A.G. Mathioudakis reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: W.A. Wuyts has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Wells reports personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: P. Rottoli has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Nunes has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E.E. Lower reports grants from Gilead, Genentech, Bayer and aTYR, grants and personal fees for consultancy from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.A. Judson received grant support for his institution from Mallickrodt. Conflict of interest: D. Israël-Biet has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.C. Grutters has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Drent has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D.A. Culver reports grants and personal fees from aTyr, Mallinckrodt, Boehringer Ingelheim and Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F. Bonella reports personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Galapagos, BMS and Savara Pharma, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K. Antoniou has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: F. Martone has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Quadder has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Spitzer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Nagavci acts as an ERS methodologist. Conflict of interest: T. Tonia acts as an ERS methodologist. Conflict of interest: D. Rigau acts as an ERS methodologist. Conflict of interest: D.R. Oullette reports grants from PCORI (Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute, US Federal) and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; and has provided expert witness work for venous thromboembolic disease., (Copyright ©The authors 2021. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Objective: To evaluate the agreement between diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and those from cohort studies in nutrition research, and to investigate potential factors for disagreement., Design: Meta-epidemiological study., Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Medline., Review Methods: Population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome (PI/ECO) elements from a body of evidence from cohort studies (BoE(CS)) were matched with corresponding elements of a body of evidence from randomised controlled trials (BoE(RCT)). Pooled ratio of risk ratios or difference of mean differences across all diet-disease outcome pairs were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore factors for disagreement. Heterogeneity was assessed through I 2 and τ 2 . Prediction intervals were calculated to assess the range of possible values for the difference in the results between evidence from randomised controlled trials and evidence from cohort studies in future comparisons., Results: 97 diet-disease outcome pairs (that is, matched BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS)) were identified overall. For binary outcomes, the pooled ratio of risk ratios comparing estimates from BoE(RCT) with BoE(CS) was 1.09 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.14; I 2 =68%; τ 2 =0.021; 95% prediction interval 0.81 to 1.46). The prediction interval indicated that the difference could be much more substantial, in either direction. We further explored heterogeneity and found that PI/ECO dissimilarities, especially for the comparisons of dietary supplements in randomised controlled trials and nutrient status in cohort studies, explained most of the differences. When the type of intake or exposure between both types of evidence was identical, the estimates were similar. For continuous outcomes, small differences were observed between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies., Conclusion: On average, the difference in pooled results between estimates from BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS) was small. But wide prediction intervals and some substantial statistical heterogeneity in cohort studies indicate that important differences or potential bias in individual comparisons or studies cannot be excluded. Observed differences were mainly driven by dissimilarities in population, intervention or exposure, comparator, and outcome. These findings could help researchers further understand the integration of such evidence into prospective nutrition evidence syntheses and improve evidence based dietary guidelines., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Forschungskommission der Medizinischen Fakultät Freiburg for the submitted work; LS is a member of the GRADE working group; JJM is a member of the GRADE working group and director of the Freiburg GRADE centre; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Most patients diagnosed with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) are older than 60 years. Despite promising treatment options for younger patients, prognosis for the elderly remains poor and efficacy of available treatment options is limited., Materials and Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify and summarize the current study pool available evaluating different types and combinations of (immuno) chemotherapy with a special focus on HCT-ASCT in elderly PCNSL. Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches in the bibliographic databases Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect (last search conducted in September 2020). For ongoing studies, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the German study register and the WHO registry., Results: In total, we identified six randomized controlled trials (RCT) with 1.346 patients, 26 prospective (with 1.366 patients) and 24 retrospective studies (with 2.629 patients). Of these, only six studies (one completed and one ongoing RCT (with 447 patients), one completed and one ongoing prospective single arm study (with 65 patients), and two retrospective single arm studies (with 122 patients)) evaluated HCT-ASCT. Patient relevant outcomes such as progression-free and overall survival and (neuro-)toxicity were adequately considered across almost all studies. The current study pool is, however, not conclusive in terms of the most effective treatment options for elderly. Main limitations were (very) small sample sizes and heterogeneous patient populations in terms of age ranges (particularly in RCTs) limiting the applicability of the results to the target population (elderly)., Conclusions: Although it has been shown that HCT-ASCT is probably a feasible and effective treatment option, this approach has never been investigated within a RCT including a wide range of elderly patients. A RCT comparing conventional (immuno) chemotherapy with HCT-ASCT is crucial to evaluate benefit and harms in an un-biased manner to eventually provide older PCNSL patients with the most effective treatment.

Introduction: In current medical practice of curative treatment for non-metastatic oesophageal cancer, surgery on principle is carried out by oesophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment. However, oesophagectomy is often associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Taking into account that modern neoadjuvant therapy is effective and many of patients show no vital tumour cells in the operative specimens, we aim to perform a scoping review as part of the development phase for a prospectively planned multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating 'surgery as needed vs surgery on principle in patients with postneoadjuvant complete response of oesophageal cancer' (Prospective trial registration number DRKS00022801). This scoping approach will allow us to finally define and/or adapt the research question including the design and methodology of the randomised controlled trial taking into account the findings for example, research gaps and/or pitfalls in the currently available study pool addressing this or very similar questions., Methods and Analysis: To identify relevant research, we will conduct searches in the electronic databases Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library and Science Direct. We will also check references of relevant studies and perform a cited reference research (forward citation tracking). Titles and abstracts of the records identified by the searches will be screened and full texts of all potentially relevant articles will be obtained. We will consider randomised trials and non-randomised controlled studies. Data extraction tables will be set up, including study and patients' characteristics, aim of study and reported outcomes. We will summarise the data using tables and figures (eg, bubble plots) to present the research landscape and to describe potential clusters and/or gaps to support the planning of a randomised trial in this patient population., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. Study findings will be shared by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and by presentation to key stakeholders on scientific meetings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: A substantial fraction of patients with esophageal cancer show post-neoadjuvant pathological complete response (pCR). Principal esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment is the standard of care for all patients, although surveillance and surgery as needed in case of local recurrence may be a treatment alternative for patients with complete response (CR)., Methods: We performed a scoping review to describe key characteristics of relevant clinical studies including adults with non-metastatic esophageal cancer receiving multimodal treatment. Until September 2020, relevant studies were identified through systematic searches in the bibliographic databases Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ClinicalTrials, the German study register, and the WHO registry platform., Results: In total, three completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs, with 468 participants), three planned/ongoing RCTs (with a planned sample size of 752 participants), one non-randomized controlled study (NRS, with 53 participants), ten retrospective cohort studies (with 2228 participants), and one survey on patients' preferences (with 100 participants) were identified. All studies applied neoadjuvant chemoradiation protocols. None of the studies examined neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic protocols. Studies investigated patient populations with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and mixed cohorts. Important outcomes reported were overall, disease-free and local recurrence-free survival. Limitations of the currently available study pool include heterogeneous chemoradiation protocols, a lack of modern neoadjuvant treatment protocols in RCTs, short follow-up times, the use of heterogeneous diagnostic methods, and different definitions of clinical CR., Conclusion: Although post-neoadjuvant surveillance and surgery as needed compared with post-neoadjuvant surgery on principle has been investigated within different study designs, the currently available results are based on a wide variation of diagnostic tools to identify patients with pCR, short follow-up times, small sample sizes, and variations in therapeutic procedures. A thoroughly planned RCT considering the limitations in the currently available literature will be of great importance to provide patients with CR with the best and less harmful treatment.

Introduction: We conducted a scoping review of dietary guidelines with the intent of developing a position paper by the "IUNS Task force on Dietary Fat Quality" tasked to summarize the available evidence and provide the basis for dietary recommendations., Methods: We systematically searched several databases and Web sites for relevant documents published between 2015 and 2019., Results: Twenty documents were included. Quantitative range intake recommendations for daily total fat intake included boundaries from 20 to 35% of total energy intake (TEI), for monounsaturated fat (MUFA) 10-25%, for polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) 6-11%, for saturated-fat (SFA) ≤11-≤7%, for industrial trans-fat (TFA) ≤2-0%, and <300-<200 mg/d for dietary cholesterol. The methodological approaches to grade the strength of recommendations were heterogeneous, and varied highly between the included guidelines. Only the World Health Organization applied the GRADE approach and graded the following recommendation as "strong": to reduce SFA to below 10%, and TFA to below 1% and replace both with PUFA if SFA intake is greater than 10% of TEI., Conclusion: Although the methodological approaches of the dietary guidelines were heterogeneous, most of them recommend total fat intakes of 30-≤35% of TEI, replacement of SFA with PUFA and MUFA, and avoidance of industrial TFA., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background : Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2020 Janiaud P et al.)

Setting: Previous studies in many countries have shown that mortality due to tuberculosis (TB) is higher among people of lower socio-economic status., Objective: To assess the magnitude and direction of trends in educational inequalities in TB mortality in 11 European countries., Design: Data on TB mortality between 1980 and 2011 were collected among persons aged 35-79 years. Age-standardised mortality rates by educational level were calculated. Inequalities were estimated using the relative and slope indices of inequality., Results: In the first decade of the twenty-first century, educational inequalities in TB mortality occurred in all countries in this study. The largest absolute inequalities were observed in Lithuania, and the smallest in Denmark. In most countries, relative inequalities have remained stable since the 1980s or 1990s, while absolute inequalities remained stable or went down. In Lithuania and Estonia, however, absolute inequalities increased substantially., Conclusion: The reduction in absolute inequalities in TB mortality, as seen in many European countries, is a major achievement; however, inequalities persist and are still a major cause for concern in the twenty-first century. Interventions aimed at preventing TB disease and reducing TB case fatality in lower socio-economic groups should be intensified, especially in the Baltic countries.