Search

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

Uvod: Preporučene smjernice za izvještavanje u sustavnim pregledima i metaanalizama (engl. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, PRISMA) prvi su puta objavljene 2009. godine kako bi autorima sustavnih pregleda omogućile transparentno izvještavanje o predmetu istraživanja, korištenim metodama i dobivenim rezultatima. Tijekom posljednjeg desetljeća postignut je značajan napredak u metodologiji i terminologiji sustavnih pregleda, što je rezultiralo potrebom za nadopunjavanjem i prilagođavanjem postojećih smjernica. Svrha rada: Predstaviti ažurirane smjernice PRISMA 2020. za izvještavanje u sustavnim pregledima. Metode: Pregledali smo 60 dokumenata sa smjernicama za izvještavanje u sustavnim pregledima s ciljem obuhvaćanja predloženih izmjena smjernica PRISMA iz 2009. godine. Tražili smo povratne informacije o predloženim izmjenama pomoću internetske ankete provedene među 110 urednika časopisa i metodologa sustavnih pregleda. O rezultatima anketa i pregleda raspravljalo se na sastanku na kojem je sudjelovao 21 član. Nakon sastanka, temeljem povratnih informacija koautora i prigodnog uzorka od 15 recenzenata sustavnih pregleda, generirali smo koncept za kontrolni popis PRISMA 2020., sažetak kontrolnog popisa, razradu i objašnjenje te dijagram toka. Rezultati: U ovom radu predstavljamo kontrolni popis za smjernice PRISMA 2020. sastavljene od 27 stavki, odnosno prošireni kontrolni popis s detaljnim preporukama za izvještavanje pojedine stavke, sažetak kontrolnog popisa PRISMA 2020. te revidirane dijagrame toka za izvorne i ažurirane preglede. Kontrolni popis uključuje nove smjernice za izvještavanje koje sadrže ažurirane metode identifikacije, odabira, procjene i sinteze istraživanja. Struktura i prikaz stavaka su izmijenjeni kako bi se olakšala njihova provedba. Smjernice PRISMA 2020. zamjenjuju smjernice iz 2009. godine. Zaključak: Svrha smjernica PRISMA 2020. je olakšati transparentnost, cjelovitost i točnost izvještavanja u sustavnim pregledima. Poboljšano izvještavanje koristiti će autorima sustavnih pregleda, autorima smjernica, kreatorima politike, zdravstvenim radnicima, pacijentima i drugim korisnicima. U svrhu postizanja navedenih ciljeva potičemo autore, urednike i recenzente da usvoje predstavljene smjernice.

A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodologia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modificadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

ImportanceEmerging policies drafted by the pharmaceutical industry indicate that they will transparently share clinical trial data. These data offer an unparalleled opportunity to advance evidence-based medicine and support decision-making.ObjectiveTo evaluate the eligibility of independent, qualified researchers to access individual participant data (IPD) from oncology trials that supported US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new anticancer medicines within the past 10 years.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this quality improvement study, a cross-sectional analysis was performed of pivotal clinical trials whose results supported FDA-approved anticancer medicines between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2021. These trials’ results were identified from product labels.ExposuresEligibility for IPD sharing was confirmed by identification of a public listing of the trial as eligible for sharing or by receipt of a positive response from the sponsor to a standardized inquiry.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was frequency of IPD sharing eligibility. Reasons for data sharing ineligibility were requested and collated, and company-, drug-, and trial-level subgroups were evaluated and presented using χ2 tests and forest plots.ResultsDuring the 10-year period examined, 115 anticancer medicines were approved by the FDA on the basis of evidence from 304 pharmaceutical industry–sponsored trials. Of these trials, 136 (45%) were eligible for IPD sharing and 168 (55%) were not. Data sharing rates differed substantially among industry sponsors, with the most common reason for not sharing trial IPD being that the collection of long-term follow-up data was still ongoing (89 of 168 trials [53%]). Of the top 10 anticancer medicines by global sales, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and pomalidomide had the lowest eligibility rates for data sharing (Conclusions and RelevanceThere has been a substantial increase in IPD sharing for industry-sponsored oncology trials over the past 5 years. However, this quality improvement study found that more than 50% of queried trials for FDA-approved anticancer medicines were ineligible for IPD sharing. Data accessibility would be substantially improved if, at the time of FDA registration of a medicine, all data that support the registration were made available.

PURPOSE: To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs’ knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs’ knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics. RESULTS: The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Depression is common in older people and symptoms of depression are known to substantially increase during hospitalization. There is little known about predictors of depressive symptoms in older adults or impact of common interventions during hospitalization. This study aimed to describe the magnitude of depressive symptoms, shift of depressive symptoms and the impact of the symptoms of depression among older hospital patients during hospital admission and identify whether exposure to falls prevention education affected symptoms of depression. Participants (n=1206) were older adults admitted within two Australian hospitals, the majority of participants completed the Geriatric Depression Scale - Short Form (GDS) at admission (n=1168). Participants' mean age was 74.7 (±SD 11) years and 47% (n=551) were male. At admission 53% (619 out of 1168) of participants had symptoms of clinical depression and symptoms remained at the same level at discharge for 55% (543 out of 987). Those exposed to the low intensity education program had higher GDS scores at discharge than those in the control group (low intensity vs control n=652, adjusted regression coefficient (95% CI)=0.24 (0.02, 0.45), p=0.03). The only factor other than admission level of depression that affected depressive symptoms change was if the participant was worried about falling. Older patients frequently present with symptoms of clinical depression on admission to hospital. Future research should consider these factors, whether these are modifiable and whether treatment may influence outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a frequent consequence of stroke and can impact on a person's ability to perform everyday activities. Occupational therapists use a range of interventions when working with people who have cognitive impairment poststroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of occupational therapy on activities of daily living (ADL), both basic and instrumental, global cognitive function, and specific cognitive abilities in people who have cognitive impairment following a stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases (all last searched September 2020), trial registries, and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi‐randomised controlled trials that evaluated an intervention for adults with clinically defined stroke and confirmed cognitive impairment. The intervention needed either to be provided by an occupational therapist or considered within the scope of occupational therapy practice as defined in the review. We excluded studies focusing on apraxia or perceptual impairments or virtual reality interventions as these are covered by other Cochrane Reviews. The primary outcome was basic activities of daily living (BADL) such as dressing, feeding, and bathing. Secondary outcomes were instrumental ADL (IADL) (e.g. shopping and meal preparation), community integration and participation, global cognitive function and specific cognitive abilities (including attention, memory, executive function, or a combination of these), and subdomains of these abilities. We included both observed and self‐reported outcome measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence. A third review author moderated disagreements if consensus was not reached. We contacted trial authors for additional information and data, where available. We assessed the certainty of key outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials from 11 countries involving 1142 (analysed) participants (two weeks to eight years since stroke onset). This update includes 23 new trials in addition to the one study included in the previous version. Most were parallel randomised controlled trials except for one cross‐over trial and one with a two‐by‐two factorial design. Most studies had sample sizes under 50 participants. Twenty studies involved a remediation approach to cognitive rehabilitation, particularly using computer‐based interventions. The other four involved a compensatory and adaptive approach. The length of interventions ranged from 10 days to 18 weeks, with a mean total length of 19 hours. Control groups mostly received usual rehabilitation or occupational therapy care, with a few receiving an attention control that was comparable to usual care; two had no intervention (i.e. a waiting list). Apart from high risk of performance bias for all but one of the studies, the risk of bias for other aspects was mostly low or unclear. For the primary outcome of BADL, meta‐analysis found a small effect on completion of the intervention with a mean difference (MD) of 2.26 on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 4.22; P = 0.03, I(2) = 0%; 6 studies, 336 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Therefore, on average, BADL improved by 2.26 points on the FIM that ranges from 18 (total assist) to 126 (complete independence). On follow‐up, there was insufficient evidence of an effect at three months (MD 10.00, 95% CI −0.54 to 20.55; P = 0.06, I(2) = 53%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low‐certainty evidence), but evidence of an effect at six months (MD 11.38, 95% CI 1.62 to 21.14, I(2) = 12%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low‐certainty evidence). These differences are below 22 points which is the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the FIM for people with stroke. For IADL, the evidence is very uncertain about an effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.47; P = 0.0005, I(2) = 98%; 2 studies, 88 participants). For community integration, we found insufficient evidence of an effect (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.54; P = 0.68, I(2) = 0%; 2 studies, 78 participants). There was an improvement of clinical importance in global cognitive functional performance after the intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54; P = 0.0004, I(2) = 0%; 9 studies, 432 participants; low‐certainty evidence), equating to 1.63 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (95% CI 0.75 to 2.52), which exceeds the anchor‐based MCID of the MoCA for stroke rehabilitation patients of 1.22. We found some effect for attention overall (SMD −0.31, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.15; P = 0.0002, I(2) = 20%; 13 studies, 620 participants; low‐certainty evidence), equating to a difference of 17.31 seconds (95% CI 8.38 to 26.24), and for executive functional performance overall (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 74%; 11 studies, 550 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), equating to 1.41 points on the Frontal Assessment Battery (range: 0–18). Of the cognitive subdomains, we found evidence of effect of possible clinical importance, immediately after intervention, for sustained visual attention (moderate certainty) equating to 15.63 seconds, for working memory (low certainty) equating to 59.9 seconds, and thinking flexibly (low certainty), compared to control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment poststroke remains unclear. Occupational therapy may result in little to no clinical difference in BADL immediately after intervention and at three and six months' follow‐up. Occupational therapy may slightly improve global cognitive performance of a clinically important difference immediately after intervention, likely improves sustained visual attention slightly, and may slightly increase working memory and flexible thinking after intervention. There is evidence of low or very low certainty or insufficient evidence for effect on other cognitive domains, IADL, and community integration and participation. Given the low certainty of much of the evidence in our review, more research is needed to support or refute the effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment after stroke. Future trials need improved methodology to address issues including risk of bias and to better report the outcome measures and interventions used.