Search

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors conduct evidence syntheses and have done methodological research on RRs but do not have other specific competing interests. VJK: no competing interests. BNS: no competing interests. ES: no competing interests. DD: works part time for Cochrane Ireland and Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which are funded within the University of Ireland Galway (Ireland) by the Health Research Board (HRB) and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development (HSC R&D) Division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. LK: no competing interests. MV: no competing interests. GG: no competing interests.

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

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

Background: Noncommunicable diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide. Unhealthy diets are a major risk factor. Among other dietary factors, poorer quality of carbohydrates in the diet is associated with an increased risk of NCDs. The proportion of dietary fibre is a particularly important indicator of the quality of carbohydrate., Objective: The aim of this World Health Organization (WHO)guideline is to provide guidance on carbohydrate intake, including dietary fibre and healthy food sources of carbohydrates., Method: This guideline was developed following the WHO Manual for Guideline Development. The process includes a review of systematically gathered evidence by an international, multidisciplinary group of experts, an assessment of the confidence in this evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, and the consideration of additional factors when translating the evidence into recommendations., Results: The results of seven systematic reviews inform the formulation of carbohydrate intake recommendations. The WHO recommends that carbohydrate intake should consist primarily of whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes. It also recommends an intake of at least 400 g of vegetables and fruit per day for adults and at least 250-400 g per day for children and young people, depending on their age. With regard to naturally occurring fiber, a daily intake of at least 25 g is recommended for adults and 15-25 g per day for children and adolescents, depending on age., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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

Data extraction is a crucial, yet labor-intensive and error-prone part of evidence synthesis. To date, efforts to harness machine learning for enhancing efficiency of the data extraction process have fallen short of achieving sufficient accuracy and usability. With the release of large language models (LLMs), new possibilities have emerged to increase efficiency and accuracy of data extraction for evidence synthesis. The objective of this proof-of-concept study was to assess the performance of an LLM (Claude 2) in extracting data elements from published studies, compared with human data extraction as employed in systematic reviews. Our analysis utilized a convenience sample of 10 English-language, open-access publications of randomized controlled trials included in a single systematic review. We selected 16 distinct types of data, posing varying degrees of difficulty (160 data elements across 10 studies). We used the browser version of Claude 2 to upload the portable document format of each publication and then prompted the model for each data element. Across 160 data elements, Claude 2 demonstrated an overall accuracy of 96.3% with a high test-retest reliability (replication 1: 96.9%; replication 2: 95.0% accuracy). Overall, Claude 2 made 6 errors on 160 data items. The most common errors (n = 4) were missed data items. Importantly, Claude 2's ease of use was high; it required no technical expertise or labeled training data for effective operation (i.e., zero-shot learning). Based on findings of our proof-of-concept study, leveraging LLMs has the potential to substantially enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data extraction for evidence syntheses., (© 2024 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) contribute substantially to the global burden of infections. This systematic review assessed 24 infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions to prevent PIVC-associated infections and other complications., Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, WHO Global Index Medicus, CINAHL, and reference lists for controlled studies from 1 January 1980-16 March 2023. We dually selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and rated the certainty of evidence (COE). For outcomes with 3 or more trials, we conducted Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses., Results: 105 studies met our prespecified eligibility criteria, addressing 16 of the 24 research questions; no studies were identified for 8 research questions. Based on findings of low to high COE, wearing gloves reduced the risk of overall adverse events related to insertion compared with no gloves (1 non-randomized controlled trial [non-RCT]; adjusted risk ratio [RR], .52; 95% CI, .33-.85), and catheter removal based on defined schedules potentially resulted in a lower phlebitis/thrombophlebitis incidence (10 RCTs; RR, 0.74, 95% credible interval, .49-1.01) compared with clinically indicated removal in adults. In neonates, chlorhexidine reduced the phlebitis score compared with non-chlorhexidine-containing disinfection (1 RCT; 0.14 vs 0.68; P = .003). No statistically significant differences were found for other measures., Conclusions: Despite their frequent use and concern about PIVC-associated complications, this review underscores the urgent need for more high-quality studies on effective IPC methods regarding safe PIVC management. In the absence of valid evidence, adherence to standard precaution measures and documentation remain the most important principles to curb PIVC complications., Clinical Trials Registration: The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/exdb4)., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. W. Z. received presentation honoraria from the company 3M for giving a webinar. M. L. G., P. R., R. E., and A. M. C. received royalties, contracts and grants from non-pharmaceutical entities. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Bright light therapy (BLT) and pharmacological therapies currently represent the first line treatments for patients with seasonal affective disorder (SAD). Lifestyle modifications offer a diverse field of additional intervention options. Since it is unclear, if lifestyle modifications are effective in SAD patients, this systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence on their effectiveness and safety. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing lifestyle modifications (nutrition, exercise, staying outdoors, sleep, social aspects, mindfulness methods) in SAD patients. We defined the primary outcome as the post-therapeutic extent of depressive symptoms, measured by validated psychiatric symptom scales. Due to the insufficient number of studies and the high heterogeneity of the interventions we were not able to calculate a meta-analysis. We identified 6 studies from the following areas of lifestyle modification: diet, exercise, staying outdoors, sleep and music therapy. All studies showed improvements of depression scores in the intervention as well as in the control groups. The risk of bias was rated as high for all studies and the certainty of evidence was rated as very low. The results point towards the possible effectiveness of the interventions examined, but due to the small number of studies found, too small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we cannot draw a valid conclusion about the effectiveness of lifestyle-modifying measures in SAD patients. Larger, high-quality RCTs are needed to make evidence-based recommendations and thus to expand the range of therapeutic options for SAD., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Winkler received lecture fees/authorship honoraria within the last three years from Angelini, Lundbeck, MedMedia Verlag, and Medical Dialogue. The other authors report no financial or other relationship possibly relevant to the subject of this article., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment)., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome., Main Results: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions., Results: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring., Conclusion: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Premature infants (gestation age<37 weeks) and low-birth-weight infants (< 2.5 kg) require complex care to ensure their survival, growth and neurological development. Increased risk for developmental disorders, infections, and challenges with nutrition and body temperature regulation require comprehensive measures in care., Aim: The aim of this guideline was to improve the care of premature and low-birth-weight infants through updated recommendations., Methods: The recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) have been implemented in this guideline in accordance with the WHO handbook for guideline development. This publication has been translated into German by staff members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria)., Results/conclusions: This guideline includes 11 strong and 14 conditional recommendations, of which 16 describe preventive and promotive care, 6 recommendations about care for complications and 3 for family involvement and support, as well as one statement of good practice., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

This paper, part of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group series, offers guidance on determining when to conduct a rapid review (RR) instead of a full systematic review (SR). While both review types aim to comprehensively synthesise evidence, RRs, conducted within a shorter time frame of typically 6 months or less, involve streamlined methods to expedite the process. The decision to opt for an RR depends on the urgency of the research question, resource availability and the impact on decision outcomes. The paper categorises scenarios where RRs are appropriate, including urgent decision-making, informing guidelines, assessing new technologies and identifying evidence gaps. It also outlines instances when RRs may be inappropriate, cautioning against conducting them solely for ease, quick publication or only cost-saving motives.When deciding on an RR, it is crucial to consider both conceptual and practical factors. These factors encompass the urgency of needing timely evidence, the consequences of waiting for a full SR, the potential risks associated with incomplete evidence, and the risk of not using synthesised evidence in decision-making, among other considerations. Key factors to weigh also include having a clearly defined need, a manageable scope and access to the necessary expertise. Overall, this paper aims to guide informed judgements about whether to choose an RR over an SR based on the specific research question and context. Researchers and decision-makers are encouraged to carefully weigh potential trade-offs when opting for RRs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The World Health Organization (WHO) published the "Guidelines on mental health at work" in September 2022. WHO developed the guidelines in accordance with WHO standards. The summary of this guideline was translated into German by the team of the WHO Collaborating Center for Evidence-based Medicine at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria) for use in German-speaking countries. An estimated 15+% of working-age adults have had some mental disorder at some point of time in their lives. This can lead to impaired capacity to work, resulting in reduction in productivity and performance, and ability to work safely, or in difficulties in retaining their jobs or obtaining gainful employment. The guidelines contain 12 recommendations. These provide evidence-based global public health guidance on organizational interventions, manager and worker training, and individual interventions for the promotion of positive mental health and prevention of mental health conditions, as well as recommendations on returning to work following absence associated with mental health conditions and gaining employment for people living with mental health conditions. Through the provision of these WHO recommendations, it is anticipated that the guidelines will facilitate national and workplace-level actions in the areas of policy development, service planning and delivery in the domains of mental and occupational health., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from Cochrane for the submitted work. Certain methods studies upon which some of the recommendations are based have been carried out by authors of this guidance (GG, BNS, CH, CG, VJK, and CK). UG, BNS, and MT planned and carried out the evaluation study of the interim rapid review methods guidance.

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper addresses considerations for rating the certainty of evidence (COE) in RRs. We recommend the full implementation of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for Cochrane RRs if time and resources allow.If time or other resources do not permit the full implementation of GRADE, the following recommendations can be considered: (1) limit rating COE to the main intervention and comparator and limit the number of outcomes to critical benefits and harms; (2) if a literature review or a Delphi approach to rate the importance of outcomes is not feasible, rely on informal judgements of knowledge users, topic experts or team members; (3) replace independent rating of the COE by two reviewers with single-reviewer rating and verification by a second reviewer and (4) if effect estimates of a well-conducted systematic review are incorporated into an RR, use existing COE grades from such a review. We advise against changing the definition of COE or the domains considered part of the GRADE approach for RRs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GG and EA are members of the GRADE Working Group; HJS is co-chair of the GRADE Working Group; DD works part time for Cochrane Ireland and Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which are funded within the University of Ireland Galway (Ireland) by the Health Research Board (HRB) and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development (HSC R&D) Division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG). Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review (SR) methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods to ensure integrity. This paper addresses considerations around the acceleration of study selection, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment in RRs. If a RR is being undertaken, review teams should consider using one or more of the following methodological shortcuts: screen a proportion (eg, 20%) of records dually at the title/abstract level until sufficient reviewer agreement is achieved, then proceed with single-reviewer screening; use the same approach for full-text screening; conduct single-data extraction only on the most relevant data points and conduct single-RoB assessment on the most important outcomes, with a second person verifying the data extraction and RoB assessment for completeness and correctness. Where available, extract data and RoB assessments from an existing SR that meets the eligibility criteria., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IS and LP: None declared. BN-S, CH, DD and GG are co-convenors of the RRMG. MT worked 2022 as research associate for the RRMG. AN-S is leading the crowdsourcing project ‘Cochrane Crowd’., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group (RRMG) first released interim guidance in March 2020 to support authors in conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess the adherence and investigate authors' understanding of the RRMG guidance. We identified all documents citing the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance up to February 17, 2022 and performed an exploratory adherence analysis. We interviewed 20 RR authors to assess the recommendations' comprehensibility and reasons for any deviations. Further, we surveyed nine authors of COVID-19-related Cochrane reviews for their reasons for not conducting a RR. We analyzed 128 RRs (111 non-Cochrane, 17 Cochrane) that cited the RRMG guidance. Several recommendations were not followed by a large proportion of RR authors such as stepwise approach to study design inclusion or peer review of search strategies, whereas others were exceeded, for example, dual independent screening of abstracts/full texts. The most reported reasons for deviating from the guidance were time constraints, unclarities in the recommended approach, or inapplicability to the specific RR. Overall, the guidance was viewed as user-friendly; however, without pre-existing knowledge of systematic review (SR) conduct, the application was perceived as difficult. The main reasons for conducting a full SR over a RR were late availability of the guidance, preset mandate to conduct a SR, uncertainty regarding methodological distinctions between SR and RR, and inapplicability to the evidence base. Clarifications are warranted throughout the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance to ensure that users with various experience levels can understand and apply its recommendations accordingly., (© 2023 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Most HBV-associated deaths among adults are secondary to infections acquired at birth or in the first five years of life., Aim: To extend the guideline for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of the hepatitis B virus to include antiviral prophylaxis., Methods: The guideline was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in accordance with WHO standards. The summary was translated into German by employees of the WHO Collaborating Centre at Danube University Krems (Austria)., Results: In addition to the recommendation to test pregnant women for heptatitis B virus (HBV) and vaccinate newborns against hepatitis B as soon as possible after birth, two new recommendations have been formulated: pregnant women testing positive for HBV infection should receive tenofovir prophylaxis to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HBV. WHO recommends that in settings in which antenatal HBV DNA testing is not available, HBeAg testing can be used as an alternative to determine eligibility for tenofovir prophylaxis., Competing Interests: Gerald Gartlehner und Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit haben in den letzten 3 Jahren von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) Honorare für das Abhalten von GRADE Workshops erhalten., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continuous need to automatize the process and use the workforce and resources to make it faster and more efficient., Methods: Information gathered by previous EVBRES research was used to construct a questionnaire for round 1 which was partly quantitative, partly qualitative. Fifty five experienced SR authors were invited to participate in a Delphi study (DS) designed to identify the most promising areas and methods to improve the efficient production and updating of SRs. Topic questions focused on which areas of SRs are most time/effort/resource intensive and should be prioritized in further research. Data were analysed using NVivo 12 plus, Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS. Thematic analysis findings were used on the topics on which agreement was not reached in round 1 in order to prepare the questionnaire for round 2., Results: Sixty percent (33/55) of the invited participants completed round 1; 44% (24/55) completed round 2. Participants reported average of 13.3 years of experience in conducting SRs (SD 6.8). More than two thirds of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed the following topics should be prioritized: extracting data, literature searching, screening abstracts, obtaining and screening full texts, updating SRs, finding previous SRs, translating non-English studies, synthesizing data, project management, writing the protocol, constructing the search strategy and critically appraising. Participants have not considered following areas as priority: snowballing, GRADE-ing, writing SR, deduplication, formulating SR question, performing meta-analysis., Conclusions: Data extraction was prioritized by the majority of participants as an area that needs more research/methods development. Quality of available language translating tools has dramatically increased over the years (Google translate, DeepL). The promising new tool for snowballing emerged (Citation Chaser). Automation cannot substitute human judgement where complex decisions are needed (GRADE-ing)., Trial Registration: Study protocol was registered at https://osf.io/bp2hu/ ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Objectives: Assessing changes in coverage, recall, review, conclusions and references not found when searching fewer databases., Methods: In randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews, we checked included study publications' coverage (indexation) and recall (findability) using different search approaches with MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and related them to authors' conclusions and certainty. We assessed characteristics of unfound references., Results: Overall 1989/2080 included references, were indexed in ≥1 database (coverage = 96%). In reviews where using one of our search approaches would not change conclusions and certainty (n = 44-54), median coverage and recall were highest (range 87.9%-100.0% and 78.2%-93.3%, respectively). Here, searching ≥2 databases reached >95% coverage and ≥87.9% recall. In reviews with unchanged conclusions but less certainty (n = 2-8): 63.3%-79.3% coverage and 45.0%-75.0% recall. In reviews with opposite conclusions (n = 1-3): 63.3%-96.6% and 52.1%-78.7%. In reviews where a conclusion was no longer possible (n = 3-7): 60.6%-86.0% and 20.0%-53.8%. The 265 references that were indexed but unfound were more often abstractless (30% vs. 11%) and older (28% vs. 17% published before 1991) than found references., Conclusion: Searching ≥2 databases improves coverage and recall and decreases the risk of missing eligible studies. If researchers suspect that relevant articles are difficult to find, supplementary search methods should be used., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Utilisation of crowdsourcing within evidence synthesis has increased over the last decade. Crowdsourcing platform Cochrane Crowd has engaged a global community of 22,000 people from 170 countries. The COVID-19 pandemic presented an opportunity to engage the community and keep up with the exponential output of COVID-19 research., Aims: To test whether a crowd could accurately assess study eligibility for reviews under time constraints., Outcome Measures: time taken to complete each task, time to produce required training modules, crowd sensitivity, specificity and crowd consensus., Methods: We created four crowd tasks, corresponding to four Cochrane COVID-19 Rapid Reviews. The search results of each were uploaded and an interactive training module was developed for each task. Contributors who had participated in another COVID-19 task were invited to participate. Each task was live for 48-h. The final inclusion and exclusion decisions made by the core author team were used as the reference standard., Results: Across all four reviews 14,299 records were screened by 101 crowd contributors. The crowd completed each screening task within 48-h for three reviews and in 52 h for one. Sensitivity ranged from 94% to 100%. Four studies, out of a total of 109, were incorrectly rejected by the crowd. However, their absence ultimately would not have altered the conclusions of the reviews. Crowd consensus ranged from 71% to 92% across the four reviews., Conclusion: Crowdsourcing can play a valuable role in study identification and offers willing contributors the opportunity to help identify COVID-19 research for rapid evidence syntheses., (© 2022 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Health policy-makers must often make decisions in compressed time frames and with limited resources. Hence, rapid reviews have become a pragmatic alternative to comprehensive systematic reviews. However, it is important that rapid review methods remain rigorous to support good policy development and decisions. There is currently little evidence about which streamlined steps in a rapid review are less likely to introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty while still producing a product that remains useful to policy-makers., Methods: This paper summarizes current research describing commonly used methods and practices that are used to conduct rapid reviews and presents key considerations and options to guide methodological choices for a rapid review., Results: The most important step for a rapid review is for an experienced research team to have early and ongoing engagement with the people who have requested the review. A clear research protocol, derived from a needs assessment conducted with the requester, serves to focus the review, defines the scope of the rapid review, and guides all subsequent steps. Common recommendations for rapid review methods include tailoring the literature search in terms of databases, dates, and languages. Researchers can consider using a staged search to locate high-quality systematic reviews and then subsequently published primary studies. The approaches used for study screening and selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment should be tailored to the topic, researcher experience, and available resources. Many rapid reviews use a single reviewer for study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, or data abstraction, sometimes with partial or full verification by a second reviewer. Rapid reviews usually use a descriptive synthesis method rather than quantitative meta-analysis. Use of brief report templates and standardized production methods helps to speed final report publication., Conclusions: Researchers conducting rapid reviews need to make transparent methodological choices, informed by stakeholder input, to ensure that rapid reviews meet their intended purpose. Transparency is critical because it is unclear how or how much streamlined methods can bias the conclusions of reviews. There are not yet internationally accepted standards for conducting or reporting rapid reviews. Thus, this article proposes interim guidance for researchers who are increasingly employing these methods., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE)., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months., Selection Criteria: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome., Main Results: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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

Importance: A systematic assessment of existing research should justify the conduct and inform the design of new clinical research but is often lacking. There is little research on the barriers to and factors facilitating systematic evidence assessments., Objective: To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between February and August 2020 with 48 Swiss stakeholder groups (27 primary investigators, 9 funders and sponsors, 6 clinical trial support organizations, and 6 ethics committee members) and between January and March 2021 with 9 international funders of clinical trials from North America and Europe with a reputation for requiring systematic evidence synthesis in applications for academic clinical trials., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis., Results: Of the 57 participants, 40 (70.2%) were male. Participants universally acknowledged that a comprehensive understanding of the previous evidence is important but reported wide variation regarding how this should be achieved. Participants reported that the conduct of formal systematic reviews was currently not expected before most clinical trials, but most international funders reported expecting a systematic search for the existing evidence. Whereas time and resources were reported by all participants as barriers to conducting systematic reviews, the Swiss research ecosystem was reported not to be as supportive of a systematic approach compared with international settings., Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, Swiss stakeholders and international funders generally agreed that new clinical trials should be justified by a systematic evidence assessment but that barriers on individual, organizational, and political levels kept them from implementing it. More explicit requirements from funders appear to be needed to clarify the required level of comprehensiveness in summarizing existing evidence for different types of clinical trials.

Background: Early childhood is a time during which a child's habits are formed and family lifestyle habits are open to changes and adaptations., Objective: This guideline provides recommendations on the amount of time during the 24 hours of a day that young children, under 5 years of age, should spend being physically active or sleeping for their health and wellbeing., Method: The guideline was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in accordance with WHO standards. The summary was translated into German by employees of the WHO Collaborating Center at Danube University Krems (Austria)., Results and Conclusion: A day consists of sleep time, sedentary time and physical activity of light, moderate or vigorous intensity. Young children should have opportunities to participate in a range of developmentally appropriate, safe, enjoyable play-based physical activities., Competing Interests: Gerald Gartlehner und Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit haben in den letzten 3 Jahren von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) Honorare für das Abhalten von GRADE Workshops erhalten., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)