Search

Background This study developed, calibrated and evaluated a machine learning (ML) classifier designed to reduce study identification workload in maintaining the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (CCSR), a continuously updated register of COVID-19 research studies. Methods A ML classifier for retrieving COVID-19 research studies (the ‘Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier’) was developed using a data set of title-abstract records ‘included’ in, or ‘excluded’ from, the CCSR up to 18th October 2020, manually labelled by information and data curation specialists or the Cochrane Crowd. The classifier was then calibrated using a second data set of similar records ‘included’ in, or ‘excluded’ from, the CCSR between October 19 and December 2, 2020, aiming for 99% recall. Finally, the calibrated classifier was evaluated using a third data set of similar records ‘included’ in, or ‘excluded’ from, the CCSR between the 4th and 19th of January 2021. Results The Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier was trained using 59,513 records (20,878 of which were ‘included’ in the CCSR). A classification threshold was set using 16,123 calibration records (6005 of which were ‘included’ in the CCSR) and the classifier had a precision of 0.52 in this data set at the target threshold recall >0.99. The final, calibrated COVID-19 classifier correctly retrieved 2285 (98.9%) of 2310 eligible records but missed 25 (1%), with a precision of 0.638 and a net screening workload reduction of 24.1% (1113 records correctly excluded). Conclusions The Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier reduces manual screening workload for identifying COVID-19 research studies, with a very low and acceptable risk of missing eligible studies. It is now deployed in the live study identification workflow for the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register.

Objective: We compared the process of developing searches with and without using text-mining tools (TMTs) for evidence synthesis products. Study Design: This descriptive comparative analysis included seven systematic reviews, classified as simple or complex. Two librarians created MEDLINE strategies for each review, using either usual practice (UP) or TMTs. For each search we calculated sensitivity, number-needed-to-read (NNR) and time spent developing the search strategy. Results: We found UP searches were more sensitive (UP 92% (95% CI, 85-99); TMT 84.9% (95% CI, 74.4-95.4)), with lower NNR (UP 83 (SD 34); TMT 90 (SD 68)). UP librarians spent an average of 12 h (SD 8) developing search strategies, compared to TMT librarians’ 5 hours (SD 2). Conclusion: Across all reviews, TMT searches were less sensitive than UP searches, but confidence intervals overlapped. For simple SR topics, TMT searches were faster and slightly less sensitive than UP. For complex SR topics, TMT searches were faster and less sensitive than UP searches but identified unique eligible citations not found by the UP searches.

Introduction The Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register (CCSR) is a public, continually updated database of COVID‐19 study references. The aim of this study‐based register is to support rapid and living evidence synthesis, including an evidence ecosystem of COVID‐19 research (CEOsys). In November and December 2020 we conducted an evaluation of the CCSR for CEOsys, measured its performance and identified areas for improvement. Methods For the evaluation we generated a purposive sample of 286 studies from 20 reviews to calculate the CCSR's comprehensiveness (sensitivity), accuracy (correctly classified and linked studies) and currency (time to publish and process references). Results Our sample showed that the CCSR had an overall comprehensiveness of 77.2%, with the highest coverage for interventional studies (94.4%). The study register had 100% coverage for trial registry records, 86.5% for journal articles and 52.4% for preprints. 98.3% of references were correctly classified with regard to study type, and 93.4% with regard to study aim. 89% of studies were correctly linked. 81.4% of references were published to the register in under 30 days, with 0.5 day (median) for trial registry records, 2 days for journal articles and 56 days for preprints. Conclusion The CCSR had high comprehensiveness, accurate study classifications and short publishing times for journal articles and trial registry records in the sample. We identified that coverage and publishing time for preprints needed improvement. Finally, the evaluation illustrated the value of a study‐based register for identifying additional study references for analysis in evidence synthesis.

Cochrane has used crowdsourcing effectively to identify health evidence since 2014. To date, over 175,000 trialshave been identified for Cochrane’s Central Register of Controlled Trials via Cochrane Crowd (https://crowd.cochrane.org), Cochrane’s citizen science platform, engaging a Crowd of over 20,000 people from 166 countries. The COVID-19 pandemic presented the evidence synthesis community with the enormous challenge of keeping up with the exponential output of COVID-19 research. This case study will detail the new tasks we developed to aid the production of COVID-19 rapid reviews and supply the Cochrane COVID-19 study register. The pandemic initially looked set to disrupt the Crowd team’s plans for 2020 but has in fact served to further our understanding of the potential role crowdsourcing can play in the health evidence ecosystem.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2 in late 2019, governments worldwide implemented a multitude of non‐pharmaceutical interventions in order to control the spread of the virus. Most countries have implemented measures within the school setting in order to reopen schools or keep them open whilst aiming to contain the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2. For informed decision‐making on implementation, adaptation, or suspension of such measures, it is not only crucial to evaluate their effectiveness with regard to SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission, but also to assess their unintended consequences. OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively identify and map the evidence on the unintended health and societal consequences of school‐based measures to prevent and control the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2. We aimed to generate a descriptive overview of the range of unintended (beneficial or harmful) consequences reported as well as the study designs that were employed to assess these outcomes. This review was designed to complement an existing Cochrane Review on the effectiveness of these measures by synthesising evidence on the implications of the broader system‐level implications of school measures beyond their effects on SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, four non‐health databases, and two COVID‐19 reference collections on 26 March 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and Google searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included quantitative (including mathematical modelling), qualitative, and mixed‐methods studies of any design that provided evidence on any unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic. Studies had to report on at least one unintended consequence, whether beneficial or harmful, of one or more relevant measures, as conceptualised in a logic model. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened the titles/abstracts and subsequently full texts in duplicate, with any discrepancies between review authors resolved through discussion. One review author extracted data for all included studies, with a second review author reviewing the data extraction for accuracy. The evidence was summarised narratively and graphically across four prespecified intervention categories and six prespecified categories of unintended consequences; findings were described as deriving from quantitative, qualitative, or mixed‐method studies. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 used quantitative methods (3 experimental/quasi‐experimental; 5 observational; 5 modelling); four used qualitative methods; and one used mixed methods. Studies looked at effects in different population groups, mainly in children and teachers. The identified interventions were assigned to four broad categories: 14 studies assessed measures to make contacts safer; four studies looked at measures to reduce contacts; six studies assessed surveillance and response measures; and one study examined multiple measures combined. Studies addressed a wide range of unintended consequences, most of them considered harmful. Eleven studies investigated educational consequences. Seven studies reported on psychosocial outcomes. Three studies each provided information on physical health and health behaviour outcomes beyond COVID‐19 and environmental consequences. Two studies reported on socio‐economic consequences, and no studies reported on equity and equality consequences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneous evidence base on unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to prevent and control the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2, and summarised the available study data narratively and graphically. Primary research better focused on specific measures and various unintended outcomes is needed to fill knowledge gaps and give a broader picture of the diverse unintended consequences of school‐based measures before a more thorough evidence synthesis is warranted. The most notable lack of evidence we found was regarding psychosocial, equity, and equality outcomes. We also found a lack of research on interventions that aim to reduce the opportunity for contacts. Additionally, study investigators should provide sufficient data on contextual factors and demographics in order to ensure analyses of such are feasible, thus assisting stakeholders in making appropriate, informed decisions for their specific circumstances.

Background Acute liver failure is a rare syndrome with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in absence of transplantation as a rescue therapy. An important mechanism contributing to mortality is hyperammonemia which drives cerebral edema and raised intracranial pressure. Multiple therapies for managing hyperammonemia have been trialed. Continuous renal replacement therapy is effective in treating hyperammonemia in other disease states (notably inborn errors of metabolism). Its efficacy in acute liver failure has been suggested but further investigation is required to prove this. The objective of this systematic review will be to determine the efficacy of continuous renal replacement therapy in patients with acute liver failure and its effect on mortality and transplant-free survival. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database will be searched. Identified studies will include all patients with acute liver failure in a critical care unit treated with continuous renal replacement therapy. Primary outcome will be effectiveness of ammonia clearance and mortality. Patients treated with any other modality of ammonia lowering therapy (such as plasma exchange or Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System) will be excluded. Narrative synthesis of the identified studies will occur and if clinical homogeneity is identified, data will be pooled for meta-analysis using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model. Discussion We present a protocol for a systematic review seeking to establish a link between transplant-free survival in acute liver failure and the use of continuous renal replacement therapy. Given the anticipated paucity of literature on this subject, both narrative and quantitative syntheses are planned. Systematic review registration (PROSPERO) CRD42019122520, registered April 16, 2019.

Backgroud An increasing number of original studies suggest that exposure to shift work and long working hours during pregnancy could be associated with the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, but the results remain conflicted and inconclusive. Objective To examine the influences of shift work and longer working hours during pregnancy on maternal and fetal health outcomes. Data Sources Five electronic databases and three gray literature sources were searched up to March 15, 2019. Methods of Study Selection: Studies of all designs (except case studies and reviews) were included, which contained information on the relevant population (women who engaged in paid work during pregnancy); exposure (rotating shift work [shifts change according to a set schedule], fixed night shift [typical working period is between 11:00 pm to 11:00 am] or longer working hours [h] [>40 h per week]);comparator (fixed day shift [typical working period between 8:00 am- 6:00 pm] or standard working hours [≤40 h per week]); and outcomes (preterm delivery, low birth weight [birth weight Tabulation, Integration, and Results From 3305 unique citations, 62 observational studies (196,989 women) were included. “Low” to “very low” certainty evidence from these studies revealed that working rotating shifts was associated with an increased odds of preterm delivery (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.28, I 2 =31%), having a small for gestational age baby (OR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.38, I 2 =0%), preeclampsia (OR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.01 to 3.01, I 2 =75%) and gestational hypertension (OR=1.19, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.29, I 2 =0%), compared to those who worked a fixed day shift. Working fixed night shifts was associated with an increased odds of preterm delivery (OR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.42, I 2 =36%) and miscarriage (OR=1.23, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.47, I 2 =37%). Compared with standard hours, working longer hours was associated with an increased odds of miscarriage (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.77, I 2 =73%), preterm delivery (OR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.33, I 2 =30%), an infant of low birth weight (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.84, I 2 =0%), or an infant of small for gestational age (OR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.36, I 2 =57%). Dose-response analysis showed women working more than 55.5 hours per week (versus 40) had a 10% increase in the odds of having a preterm delivery. Conclusion Pregnant women who work rotating shifts, fixed night shifts, or longer hours have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

Objective: To determine whether children with neuromuscular disorders using long-term non-invasive ventilation, continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure, have improved health outcomes compare...

BackgroundBeginning with the guidance of central line insertion, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has evolved into a more inclusive skill set to aid in the examination and management of the acutely ill patient. Published evidence, including original literature and consensus recommendations support an array of applications in the multi-disciplinary arena of acute care medicine. In parallel, we have seen multiple professional societies’ call for more POCUS training in residency. While POCUS has been received with enthusiasm in acute care medicine, there are a number of challenges to ensuring trainees can competently perform POCUS in the acute care environment. There is inconsistent evidence to support optimum practices in curriculum design, implementation, assessment, and evaluation. To help explore this gap, we are conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence regarding POCUS curricula.MethodsWe will search electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Ovid ERIC, Science Citation Index, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index. Further, we will search the ClinicalTrials.gov register, hand search key proceedings and check references from relevant systematic reviews. Title, abstract and full text screening for inclusion of eligible papers will be performed in duplicate, in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Included publications will be evaluated for internal validity using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scale for educational studies. Data abstraction will be conducted using standardized forms with focus on learner population, number of participants, setting, POCUS application, methods of instruction, duration of intervention, methods of assessment, and program evaluation. Further to this, emphasis will be placed on validity arguments of assessment tools using Kane’s framework. Primary analysis will be qualitative in nature. When possible, homogenous studies will be pooled for quantitative meta-analysis.DiscussionOur systematic review will summarize the current evidence base for POCUS curriculum implementation, evaluation and assessment validity for acute care applications. We anticipate that our review will fill a critical knowledge gap, providing a sound platform for future evidence-based curriculum development.Systematic Review RegistrationOur systematic review was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) on September 19, 2018 with registration number: CRD42018105973.

Purpose To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care by systematically reviewing direct evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of screening adults 40 years and older in primary care to reduce fragility fractures and related mortality and morbidity, and indirect evidence on the accuracy of fracture risk prediction tools. Evidence on the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, if needed to meaningfully influence the Task Force’s decision-making. Methods A modified update of an existing systematic review will evaluate screening effectiveness, the accuracy of screening tools, and treatment benefits. For treatment harms, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews. A de novo review on acceptability will be conducted. Peer-reviewed searches (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO [acceptability only]), grey literature, and hand searches of reviews and included studies will update the literature. Based on pre-specified criteria, we will screen studies for inclusion following a liberal-accelerated approach. Final inclusion will be based on consensus. Data extraction for study results will be performed independently by two reviewers while other data will be verified by a second reviewer; there may be some reliance on extracted data from the existing reviews. The risk of bias assessments reported in the existing reviews will be verified and for new studies will be performed independently. When appropriate, results will be pooled using either pairwise random effects meta-analysis (screening and treatment) or restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartun-Knapp-Sidnick-Jonkman correction (risk prediction model calibration). Subgroups of interest to explain heterogeneity are age, sex, and menopausal status. Two independent reviewers will rate the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, with consensus reached for each outcome rated as critical or important by the Task Force. Discussion Since the publication of other guidance in Canada, new trials have been published that are likely to improve understanding of screening in primary care settings to prevent fragility fractures. A systematic review is required to inform updated recommendations that align with the current evidence base.

Context Children in care of the child welfare system tend to underutilize preventive health services compared with other children. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess current knowledge regarding immunization coverage levels for children in the child welfare system and to determine barriers and supports to them utilizing immunization services. Evidence acquisition Articles published in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and ERIC from January 1, 2000 to October 13, 2017 were searched. Thesis and conference databases and relevant websites were also examined. Studies were included if written in English, from high-income countries, and addressed immunizations for children in the child welfare system. Independent dual screening, extraction, and quality appraisal were conducted between October 2016 and December 2017, followed by narrative synthesis. Evidence synthesis Of 2,906 records identified, 33 met inclusion criteria: 21 studied coverage, two studied barriers/supports, and ten studied both. Nineteen studies were moderate or high quality and thus included in the narrative synthesis; 15 studied coverage, one studied barriers/supports, and three studied both. Most studies found lower coverage among children in child welfare. The few studies that explicitly studied barriers/supports to immunization identified that a collaborative and coordinated approach between health and social services was key to service delivery to this population. Conclusions This review highlights that children in care of the child welfare system are at risk of poor immunization coverage. There is a need for high-quality studies on this issue, with a focus on assessing supports/barriers to immunization in this population.

Background Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders. Methods We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings. Discussion The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC—supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity―to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care. Systematic review registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0904-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: The Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews contains search filters to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Ovid MEDLINE: one maximizing sensitivity and another balancing sensitivity and precision. These filters were originally published in 1994 and were adapted and updated in 2008. To determine the performance of these filters, the authors tested them and thirty-six other MEDLINE filters against a large new gold standard set of relevant records.Methods: We identified a gold standard set of RCT reports published in 2016 from the Cochrane CENTRAL database of controlled clinical trials. We retrieved the records in Ovid MEDLINE and combined these with each RCT filter. We calculated their sensitivity, relative precision, and f-scores.Results: The gold standard comprised 27,617 records. MEDLINE searches were run on July 16, 2019. The most sensitive RCT filter was Duggan et al. (sensitivity=0.99). The Cochrane sensitivity-maximizing RCT filter had a sensitivity of 0.96 but was more precise than Duggan et al. (0.14 compared to 0.04 for Duggan). The most precise RCT filters had 0.97 relative precision and 0.83 sensitivity.Conclusions: The Cochrane Ovid MEDLINE sensitivity-maximizing RCT filter can continue to be used by Cochrane reviewers and to populate CENTRAL, as it has very high sensitivity and a slightly better precision relative to more sensitive filters. The results of this study, which used a very large gold standard to compare the performance of all known RCT filters, allows searchers to make better informed decisions about which filters to use for their work.

Background Long-term prescription of opioids by healthcare professionals has been linked to poor individual patient outcomes and high resource utilization. Supportive strategies in this population regarding acute healthcare settings may have substantial impact. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies. The studies were included according to the following criteria: 1) age 18 and older; 2) long-term prescribed opioid therapy; 3) acute healthcare setting presentation from a complication of opioid therapy; 4) evaluating a supportive strategy; 5) comparing the effectiveness of different interventions; 6) addressing patient or healthcare related outcomes. We performed a qualitative analysis of supportive strategies identified. We pooled patient and system related outcome data for each supportive strategy. Results A total of 5664 studies were screened and 19 studies were included. A total of 9 broad categories of supportive strategies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for the “supports for patients in pain” supportive strategy on two system-related outcomes using a ratio of means. The number of emergency department (ED) visits were significantly reduced for cohort studies (n = 6, 0.36, 95% CI [0.20–0.62], I2 = 87%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3, 0.71, 95% CI [0.61–0.82], I2 = 0%). The number of opioid prescriptions at ED discharge was significantly reduced for RCTs (n = 3, 0.34, 95% CI [0.14–0.82], I2 = 78%). Conclusion For patients presenting to acute healthcare settings with complications related to long-term opioid therapy, the intervention with the most robust data is “supports for patients in pain”.

BackgroundLong-term prescription of opioids by healthcare professionals has been linked to poor individual patient outcomes and high resource utilization. Harm reduction strategies in this population in regard to acute healthcare settings may have substantial impact.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies. The studies were included according to the following criteria: 1) age 18 and older; 2) long-term/chronic prescribed opioid therapy; 3) acute healthcare setting presentation from a complication of opioid therapy; 4) evaluating a harm reduction strategy; 5) comparing the effectiveness of different interventions; 6) addressing patient or healthcare related outcomes. We performed a qualitative analysis of harm reduction strategies identified. We pooled patient and system related outcome data for each harm reduction strategy.ResultsA total of 5664 studies were screened and 21 studies were included. A total of 11 broad categories of harm reduction strategies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for the “supports for patients in pain” harm reduction strategy on two system-related outcomes using a ratio of means. The number of emergency department (ED) visits were significantly reduced for cohort studies (n=6, 0.36, 95% CI [0.20-0.62], I2 = 87%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n=3, 0.71, 95% CI [0.61-0.82], I2 = 0%). The number of opioid prescriptions at ED discharge was significantly reduced for RCTs (n=3, 0.34, 95% CI [0.14-0.82], I2 = 78%).InterpretationFor patients presenting to acute healthcare settings with complications related to long-term opioid therapy, the intervention with the most robust data is “supports for patients in pain”.Study registrationCRD42018088962

Background and objectives The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) is compiled from a number of sources, including PubMed and Embase. Since 2017, we have increased the number of sources feeding into CENTRAL and improved the efficiency of our processes through the use of application programming interfaces, machine learning, and crowdsourcing.Our objectives were twofold: (1) Assess the effectiveness of Cochrane's centralized search and screening processes to correctly identify references to published reports which are eligible for inclusion in Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). (2) Identify opportunities to improve the performance of Cochrane's centralized search and screening processes to identify references to eligible trials. Methods We identified all references to RCTs (either published journal articles or trial registration records) with a publication or registration date between 1st January 2017 and 31st December 2018 that had been included in a Cochrane intervention review. We then viewed an audit trail for each included reference to determine if it had been identified by our centralized search process and subsequently added to CENTRAL. Results We identified 650 references to included studies with a publication year of 2017 or 2018. Of those, 634 (97.5%) had been captured by Cochrane's Centralised Search Service. Sixteen references had been missed by the Cochrane's Centralised Search Service: six had PubMed-not-MEDLINE status, four were missed by the centralized Embase search, three had been misclassified by Cochrane Crowd, one was from a journal not indexed in MEDLINE or Embase, one had only been added to Embase in 2019, and one reference had been rejected by the automated RCT machine learning classifier. Of the sixteen missed references, eight were the main or only publication to the trial in the review in which it had been included. Conclusion This analysis has shown that Cochrane's centralized search and screening processes are highly sensitive. It has also helped us to understand better why some references to eligible RCTs have been missed. The CSS is playing a critical role in helping to populate CENTRAL and is moving us toward making CENTRAL a comprehensive repository of RCTs.

IntroductionRenal replacement therapy (RRT) is associated with high mortality and costs; however, no clinical guidelines currently provide specific recommendations for clinicians on when and how to stop RRT in recovering patients. Our objective was to systematically review the current evidence for clinical and biochemical parameters that can be used to predict successful discontinuation of RRT.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed with a peer-reviewed search strategy combining the themes of renal replacement therapy (IHD, CRRT, SLED), predictors of successful discontinuation or weaning (defined as an extended period of time free from further RRT), and patient outcomes. Major databases were searched and citations were screened using predefined criteria. Studied parameters were reported and, where possible, data was analyzed in the pooled analysis.ResultsOur search yielded 23 studies describing 16 variables for predicting the successful discontinuation of RRT. All studies were observational in nature. None were externally validated. Fourteen studies described conventional biochemical criteria used as surrogates of glomerular filtration rate (serum urea, serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, urine urea excretion, urine creatinine excretion). Thirteen studies described physiologic parameters such as urine output before and after cessation of RRT, and 13 studies reported on newer kidney biomarkers, such as serum cystatin C and serum neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). Six studies reported sensitivity and specificity characteristics of multivariate models. Urine output prior to discontinuation of RRT was the most-studied variable, with nine studies reporting. Pooled analysis found a sensitivity of 66.2% (95% CI, 53.6–76.9%) and specificity of 73.6% (95% CI, 67.5–79.0%) for urine output to predict successful RRT discontinuation. Due to heterogeneity in the thresholds of urine output used across the studies, an optimal threshold value could not be determined.ConclusionsNumerous variables have been described to predict successful discontinuation of RRT; however, available studies are limited by study design, variable heterogeneity, and lack of prospective validation. Urine output prior to discontinuation of RRT was the most commonly described and robust predictor. Further research should focus on the determination and validation of urine output thresholds, and the evaluation of additional clinical and biochemical parameters in multivariate models to enhance predictive accuracy.

CONTEXT: Digital distraction is being integrated into pediatric pain care, but its efficacy is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of digital technology distraction on pain and distress in children experiencing acutely painful conditions or procedures. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Ei Compendex, Web of Science, and gray literature sources. STUDY SELECTION: Quantitative studies of digital technology distraction for acutely painful conditions or procedures in children. DATA EXTRACTION: Performed by 1 reviewer with verification. Outcomes were child pain and distress. RESULTS: There were 106 studies (n = 7820) that reported on digital technology distractors (eg, virtual reality and video games) used during common procedures (eg, venipuncture, dental, and burn treatments). No studies reported on painful conditions. For painful procedures, digital distraction resulted in a modest but clinically important reduction in self-reported pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.66 to −0.29; 46 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; n = 3200), observer-reported pain (SMD −0.68; 95% CI −0.91 to −0.45; 17 RCTs; n = 1199), behavioral pain (SMD −0.57; 95% CI −0.94 to −0.19; 19 RCTs; n = 1173), self-reported distress (SMD −0.49; 95% CI −0.70 to −0.27; 19 RCTs; n = 1818), observer-reported distress (SMD −0.47; 95% CI −0.77 to −0.17; 10 RCTs; n = 826), and behavioral distress (SMD −0.35; 95% CI −0.59 to −0.12; 17 RCTs; n = 1264) compared with usual care. LIMITATIONS: Few studies directly compared different distractors or provided subgroup data to inform applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Digital distraction provides modest pain and distress reduction for children undergoing painful procedures; its superiority over nondigital distractors is not established. Context, preferences, and availability should inform the choice of distractor.

Background Predicting successful liberation from mechanical ventilation (MV) in critically ill patients is challenging. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) has been proposed to help guide decision-making for readiness to liberate from MV following a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and prospective observational studies that measured BNP levels at the time of SBT in patients receiving MV. The primary endpoint was successful liberation from MV (absence of reintubation or non-invasive ventilation at 48 h). Statistical analyses included bi-variate and Moses-Littenberg models and DerSimonian-Laird pooling of areas under ROC curve (AUROC). Results A total of 731 articles were screened. Eighteen adult and 2 pediatric studies were fulfilled pre-specified eligibility. The measure of the relative variation of BNP during SBT (ΔBNP%) after exclusion of SBT failure by clinical criteria in adults yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 0.889 [0.831–0.929] and 0.828 [0.730–0.896] for successful liberation from MV, respectively, with a pooled AUROC of 0.92 [0.88–0.97]. The pooled AUROC for any method of analysis for absolute variation of BNP (ΔBNP), pre-SBT BNP, and post-SBT BNP were 0.89 [0.83–0.95], 0.77 [0.63–0.91], and 0.85 [0.80–0.90], respectively. Conclusion The relative change in BNP during a SBT has potential value as an incremental tool after successful SBT to predict successful liberation from MV in adults. There is insufficient data to support the use of BNP in children or as an alternate test to clinical indices of SBT, or the use of ΔBNP, BNP-pre, and BNP-post as an alternate or incremental test. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42018087474 (6 February 2018)

Background To systematically review the literature on clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using Mantel-Haenszel (random effects model) relative risks (VBAC rate) and risk differences (uterine rupture and dehiscence). Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results Twenty-nine studies (six trials and 23 cohorts) examined different clinical interventions affecting rates of vaginal deliveries among women with a prior cesarean delivery (CD). Methodological quality was good overall for the trials; however, concerns among the cohort studies regarding selection bias, comparability of groups and outcome measurement resulted in higher risk of bias. Interventions for labor induction, with or without cervical ripening, included pharmacologic (oxytocin, prostaglandins, misoprostol, mifepristone, epidural analgesia), non-pharmacologic (membrane sweep, amniotomy, balloon devices), and combined (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic). Single studies with small sample sizes and event rates contributed to most comparisons, with no clear differences between groups on rates of VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence. Conclusions This systematic review evaluated clinical interventions directed at increasing the rate of vaginal delivery among women with a prior CD and found low to very low certainty in the body of evidence for cervical ripening and/or labor induction techniques. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to inform optimal clinical interventions among women attempting a trial of labor after a prior CD.

The aim was to establish the incidence of adverse outcomes with brucellosis infection during pregnancy.Ovid Medline (1946-), Ovid Embase (1974-), and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) (1900-), the World Health Organization website and Google were searched September 27, 2017 for (i) outcomes with brucellosis diagnosed during pregnancy and (ii) studies with retrospective diagnosis of maternal brucellosis following adverse pregnancy outcomes.Sixty studies met inclusion criteria. In 65 pregnancies from 28 case reports and 9 small case series (10 women), there were 20 spontaneous abortions (SAs) (31%), 2 intra-uterine fetal deaths (IUFDs) (3%) and 11 cases of congenital brucellosis (17%). In 14 larger case series there were 181 SAs in 679 pregnancies (27%), 19 IUFDs in 458 pregnancies (4%), and 44 preterm infants (12%) plus 6 infants with congenital brucellosis (2%) in 362 pregnancies. SA, IUFD and preterm delivery incidence were increased with meta-analysis of the 5 case series with controls. Nine studies described brucellosis seroprevalence with adverse pregnancy outcomes with no increased seroprevalence in the two studies with controls.Brucellosis almost certainly causes SA with increasing evidence that it also leads to IUFD and prematurity. Congenital brucellosis occurs in approximately 2% of infants exposed in-utero.

Background Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides guidance on the use of vaccines in Canada. To support the expansion of its mandate to include considerations for vaccine acceptability when making recommendations, the NACI Secretariat developed a matrix of factors that influence acceptability. To inform and validate the matrix, we systematically reviewed evidence for factors that influence vaccine acceptability, and for interventions aimed at improving acceptability. Methods On 10–11 October 2018 we searched four bibliographic databases, the Theses Canada Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers agreed on the included studies. From each study, we extracted information about the participants, intervention or exposure, comparator, and relevant outcomes. Due to heterogeneity in the reported factors and acceptability indicators we synthesized the findings narratively. We appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. For each vaccine-preventable disease we populated a matrix of factors for which there was evidence of an influence on acceptability. Results One hundred studies (>1 million participants) contributed data relevant to the public, 16 (6191 participants) to healthcare providers, and three (84 participants) to policymakers. There were 43 intervention studies (~2 million participants). Across vaccines, we identified low certainty evidence for 70 factors relevant to the general population, 56 to high-risk groups, and 30 to healthcare providers. The perceived safety and importance of the vaccine, vaccination history, and receiving a recommendation from a healthcare provider were common influential factors. We found low certainty evidence that reminders for childhood vaccines and policies or delivery models for rotavirus vaccines could improve uptake and coverage. Evidence for other interventions was of very low certainty. Conclusions The NACI vaccine acceptability matrix is useful for categorizing acceptability factors for the general public. Reminder systems may improve the uptake of childhood vaccines. Policies that make the rotavirus vaccine universally available and easily accessible may improve coverage. Funding This systematic review was completed under contract to the Public Health Agency of Canada, Contract #4600001536.

New approaches to evidence synthesis, which use human effort and machine automation in mutually reinforcing ways, can enhance the feasibility and sustainability of living systematic reviews. Human effort is a scarce and valuable resource, required when automation is impossible or undesirable, and includes contributions from online communities (“crowds”) as well as more conventional contributions from review authors and information specialists. Automation can assist with some systematic review tasks, including searching, eligibility assessment, identification and retrieval of full-text reports, extraction of data, and risk of bias assessment. Workflows can be developed in which human effort and machine automation can each enable the other to operate in more effective and efficient ways, offering substantial enhancement to the productivity of systematic reviews. This paper describes and discusses the potential—and limitations—of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews, identifying areas where these human/machine “technologies” are already in use, and where further research and development is needed. While the context is living systematic reviews, many of these enabling technologies apply equally to standard approaches to systematic reviewing.