Search

Objective: The objectives of this review are to identify barriers/facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries (RDPRs); determine whether and how these differ among patient partners, other knowledge users (KUs), and researchers; and chart definitions of rare diseases and RDPRs., Introduction: RDPRs are vital to improving the understanding of the natural histories and predictors of outcomes for rare diseases, assessing interventions, and identifying potential participants for clinical trials. Currently, however, the functionality of RDPRs is not fully optimized. To improve the quality and functionality of RDPRs, it is important to understand the barriers and/or facilitators involved in their design, maintenance, and utilization; how these might differ among patient partners, other KUs, and researchers; and to delineate the range of definitions for rare diseases and RDPRs., Inclusion Criteria: Evidence of any study design or format (including empirical studies, books, manuals, commentaries, editorials, guidance documents, conference abstracts, review documents, and gray literature) referencing barriers/facilitators for designing, maintaining, or utilizing RDPRs will be considered for inclusion., Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search health science databases, including the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, the JBI EBP Database, and PsycINFO, from inception onwards, as well as gray literature using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Grey Matters guidance. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full-text documents, as well as abstract data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Evidence will be synthesized descriptively and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR)., Review Registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mvf9r., Competing Interests: ACT is a member of the JBI Evidence Synthesis editorial board but was not involved in the editorial decision-making for this paper. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

Context: There is uncertainty whether acetaminophen and ibuprofen are similar in their effects and safety when used as single or dual (alternating or combined) therapies., Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of acetaminophen, ibuprofen alone, alternating, or combined through a systematic review and network meta-analysis., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to September 20, 2023., Study Selection: Randomized trials comparing acetaminophen, ibuprofen, both alternating, and both combined, for treating children with fever., Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis using the random-effects model., Results: We included 31 trials (5009 children). We found that combined (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.42) and alternating therapies (OR, 0.20; CI, 0.06-0.63) may be superior to acetaminophen, whereas ibuprofen at a high dose may be comparable (OR, 0.98; CI, 0.63-1.59) in terms of proportion of afebrile children at the fourth hour. These results were similar at the sixth hour. There were no differences between ibuprofen (low or high dose), or alternating, or combined with acetaminophen in terms of adverse events., Limitations: We only evaluated the efficacy and safety during the first 6 hours., Conclusions: Dual may be superior to single therapies for treating fever in children. Acetaminophen may be inferior to combined or alternating therapies to get children afebrile at 4 and 6 hours. Compared with ibuprofen, acetaminophen was also inferior to ibuprofen alone at 4 hours, but similar at 6 hours. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016035236., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining quantitative results across studies. A fundamental decision in undertaking a meta-analysis is choosing an appropriate model for analysis. This is the second of two companion articles which have the joint aim of describing the different meta-analysis models. In the first article, we focused on the common-effect (also known as fixed-effect [singular]) model, and in this article, we focus on the random-effects model. We describe the key assumptions underlying the random-effects model, how it is related to the common-effect and fixed-effects [plural] models, and present some of the arguments for selecting one model over another. We outline some of the methods for fitting a random-effects model. Finally, we present an illustrative example to demonstrate how the results can differ depending on the chosen model and method. Understanding the assumptions of the different meta-analysis models, and the questions they address, is critical for meta-analysis model selection and interpretation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr Areti Angeliki Veroniki is a Statistical Associate Editor for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. There are no competing interests for any author., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Network Meta-analysis (NMA) is an advanced statistical method that combines direct evidence (ie, from head-to-head comparisons) and indirect evidence (ie, estimated from the direct available evidence) to obtain network estimates. NMAs are helpful to determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions that have not been directly compared and may provide more precise estimates for those comparisons that have been directly compared. NMA provides hierarchies which can be helpful for decision-making, much more in scenarios when multiple interventions exist for the same indication. In this article we provide a summary of the key concepts that users, namely, clinicians and methodologists need to consider when using an NMA to inform decision making., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr I.D.F. and Dr A.A.V. are Editorial Board member and Statistical Associate Editor, respectively, of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but they were not involved with the peer review process or any decision of this article. All the authors of this manuscript are coauthors of some articles used in the current work as examples for didactic purposes. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To rank commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing pain in osteoarthritis trials according to their assay sensitivity, defined as the ability of a PROM to distinguish an effective from a less effective intervention or placebo, proposing a hierarchy for PROM selection in trials and data-extraction in meta-analyses., Design: Analysis of trials with placebo, sham, or non-intervention control that included ≥100 patients per arm with knee/hip osteoarthritis, reporting treatment effects on ≥2 pain PROMs. Treatment effects from all PROMs were standardized on a 0-100 scale. Negative mean differences indicated a larger effect of the experimental treatment compared to control. We ranked PROMs by assay sensitivity using a Bayesian multi-outcome synthesis random-effects model., Results: 135 trials comprising 57,141 participants were included. The ranking of PROMs from highest to lowest assay sensitivity was as follows: pain overall, pain on stairs, pain at night, pain on walking, pain at rest, WOMAC pain, WOMAC global, Lequesne index. Pain overall, the highest-ranked PROM, had a pooled mean difference of -6.96 (95%CrI -7.94, -6.02), while WOMAC pain, the most reported PROM in our study, had a pooled mean difference of -4.90 (95%CrI -5.55, -4.26). The pooled ratio of mean differences between pain overall and WOMAC pain was 1.42 (95%CrI 1.30, 1.55), representing a 42% larger effect size with pain overall., Conclusions: Pain overall has better assay sensitivity than other pain PROMs. Investigators should consider the hierarchy proposed in this study to guide PROM selection in osteoarthritis clinical trials and data extraction in osteoarthritis meta-analyses., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)., Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion., Setting: England., Population: Women treated for CIN., Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England., Main Outcome Measures: Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted., Results: For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold., Conclusions: LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence., (© 2024 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries - here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) - and (b) NMA results in general., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions., Results: The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with 3 (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and 6 (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%)., Conclusion: Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms; those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest T.A. reports a relationship with MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation that includes: board membership and employment. P.O.V. reports a relationship with MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation that includes: board membership and employment. P.O.V. and T.A. are CEO and deputy CEO of the nonprofit organization MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (https://www.magicevidence.org). In collaboration with P.O.L. at Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, MAGIC is conducting the research project Making Alternative Treatment Choices Intuitive and Trustworthy (MATCH-IT). The overarching aim of MATCH-IT is to develop a new interactive SoF table and decision support tool, displaying multiple structured evidence summaries from NMAs. The tool may be integrated as part of MAGICapp (https://app.magicapp.org/#/guidelines), an online author and publication platform for guidelines, evidence summaries and decision aids. A.A.V. is Statistical Associate Editor for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. A.C.T. is Coeditor-in-Chief for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. X.W., T.P., M.Ø., and C.L. 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 © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer treatment-related cognitive impairment (CTRCI) can substantially reduce the quality of life of cancer survivors. Many treatments of CTRCI have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including psychological interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and other therapies. There is a pressing need to establish the benefits and harms of previously studied CTRCI treatments. The proposed systematic review and network meta-analyses will assess the relative efficacy and safety of competing interventions for the management of CTRCI., Methods: In consultation with the review team, an experienced medical information specialist will draft electronic search strategies for MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Trials Registry. We will seek RCTs of interventions for the treatment of CTRCI in adults with any cancer, except cancers/metastases of the central nervous system. Due to the anticipated high search yields, dual independent screening of citations will be expedited by use of an artificial intelligence/machine learning tool. The co-primary outcomes of interest will be subjective and objective cognitive function. Secondary outcomes of interest will include measures of quality of life, mental and physical health symptoms, adherence to treatment, and harms (overall and treatment-related harms and harms associated with study withdrawal), where feasible, random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be pursued. We will address the anticipated high clinical and methodological heterogeneity through meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and/or sensitivity analyses., Discussion: The proposed systematic review will deliver a robust comparative evaluation of the efficacy and safety of existing therapies for the management of CTRCI. These findings will inform clinical decisions, identify evidence gaps, and identify promising therapies for future evaluation in RCTs., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Recently, Ades and colleagues discussed the controversies and advancements in network meta-analysis (NMA) over the past two decades, discussing its reliability, assumptions, novel approaches, and provided some useful recommendations for the conduction of NMAs. The present discussion paper builds on the insights by Ades and colleagues, providing a roadmap for NMA applications, advancements in software and tools, and approaches designed to facilitate the assessment and interpretation of NMA findings. It also discusses the impact of NMA across disciplines, particularly for policymakers and guideline developers. Despite 20 years of NMA history, challenges remain in understanding and assessing assumptions, communicating and interpreting findings, and applying common approaches like network meta-regression and NMA involving non-randomized studies in readily available software. NMA has proven particularly valuable in clinical decision-making, which highlights the need for additional training and interdisciplinary collaboration of knowledge users, including patient engagement, to enhance its adoption and address real-world problems., (© 2024 The Author(s). Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older., Design and Setting: Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Database, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Evidence -Based Medicine database were searched from inception to 20 June 20, 2022. Two reviewers screened, abstracted, and appraised articles (Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 tool) independently. We assessed certainty of findings using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approaches. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count outcomes along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals., Participants: Older adults (≥60 years old) receiving an influenza vaccine licensed in Canada or the USA (vs placebo, no vaccine, or any other licensed vaccine), at any dose., Main Outcome Measures: Laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) and influenza-like illness (ILI). Secondary outcomes were the number of vascular adverse events, hospitalisation for acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI, inpatient hospitalisation, emergency room (ER) visit for ILI, outpatient visit, and mortality, among others., Results: We included 41 RCTs and 15 companion reports comprising 8 vaccine types and 206 032 participants. Vaccines may prevent LCI compared with placebo, with high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) (NMA: 9 RCTs, 52 202 participants, OR 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11 to 0.51), low certainty of evidence) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) (OR 0.25, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.73), low certainty of evidence) among the most efficacious vaccines. Standard dose trivalent IIV3 (IIV3-SD) may prevent ILI compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (meta-analysis: 2 RCTs, 854 participants, OR 0.39, 95%CI (0.15 to 1.02), low certainty of evidence). Any HD was associated with prevention of ILI compared with placebo (NMA: 9 RCTs, 65 658 participants, OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.15 to 0.93)). Adjuvanted quadrivalent IIV (IIV4-Adj) may be associated with the least vascular adverse events, but the results were very uncertain (NMA: eight 8 RCTs, 57 677 participants, IRR 0.18, 95%CI (0.07 to 0.43), very low certainty of evidence). RIV on all-cause mortality may be comparable to placebo (NMA: 20 RCTs, 140 577 participants, OR 1.01, 95%CI (0.23 to 4.49), low certainty of evidence)., Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrated efficacy associated with IIV3-HD and RIV vaccines in protecting older persons against LCI. RIV vaccine may reduce all-cause mortality when compared with other vaccines, but the evidence is uncertain. Differences in efficacy between influenza vaccines remain uncertain with very low to moderate certainty of evidence., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020177357., 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.)

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs., Methods: We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks., Results: Our survey response rate was lower than expected (7.9% of distributed emails). Of the 684 respondents, 58.2% identified as researchers, 37.1% as practitioners, 19.2% as students and 13.5% as policymakers. Respondents frequently sought out SRs (97.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision-making. They frequently (97.9%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Just over half (50.8%) struggled to choose the most trustworthy SR among multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), or difficulties comparing due to varying methodological quality of SRs (54.2%), differences in results and conclusions (49.7%) or variation in the included studies (44.6%). Respondents compared SRs based on the relevance to their question of interest, methodological quality, and recency of the SR search. Most respondents (87.0%) were interested in an AI tool to help appraise and compare SRs., Conclusions: Given the identified barriers of using SR evidence, an AI tool to facilitate comparison of the relevance of SRs, the search and methodological quality, could help users efficiently choose among SRs and make healthcare decisions., 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.)

Meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine results from multiple studies, providing a quantitative summary of their findings. One of the fundamental decisions in conducting a meta-analysis is choosing an appropriate model to estimate the overall effect size and its CI. In this article, we focus on the common-effect (also referred to as the fixed-effect) model, and in a companion article, the random-effects model. These models are the two prevailing meta-analysis models employed in the literature. In this article, we outline the key assumption underlying the common-effect model, describe different common-effect methods (ie, inverse variance, Peto, and Mantel-Haenszel), and highlight characteristics of the meta-analysis that should be considered when selecting a method. Furthermore, we demonstrate the application of these methods to a dataset. Understanding the common-effect model is important for knowing when to use the model and how to interpret the overall effect size and its CI., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr Areti Angeliki Veroniki is a Statistical Associate Editor for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Clinical study reports (CSRs) are highly detailed documents that play a pivotal role in medicine approval processes. Though not historically publicly available, in recent years, major entities including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have highlighted the importance of CSR accessibility. The primary objective herein was to determine the proportion of CSRs that support medicine approvals available for public download as well as the proportion eligible for independent researcher request via the study sponsor., Study Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study examined the accessibility of CSRs from industry-sponsored clinical trials whose results were reported in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the top 30 highest-revenue medicines of 2021. We determined (1) whether the CSRs were available for download from a public repository, and (2) whether the CSRs were eligible for request by independent researchers based on trial sponsors' data sharing policies., Results: There were 316 industry-sponsored clinical trials with results presented in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the 30 sampled medicines. Of these trials, CSRs were available for public download from 70 (22%), with 37 available at EMA and 40 at Health Canada repositories. While pharmaceutical company platforms offered no direct downloads of CSRs, sponsors confirmed that CSRs from 183 (58%) of the 316 clinical trials were eligible for independent researcher request via the submission of a research proposal. Overall, 218 (69%) of the sampled clinical trials had CSRs available for public download and/or were eligible for request from the trial sponsor., Conclusion: CSRs were available from 69% of the clinical trials supporting regulatory approval of the 30 medicines sampled. However, only 22% of the CSRs were directly downloadable from regulatory agencies, the remaining required a formal application process to request access to the CSR from the study sponsor., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A/Prof Rowland and Prof Sorich are recipients of investigator-initiated funding for research outside the scope of the current study from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Takeda. A/Prof Rowland is a recipient of speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Genentech. Professor Swain reports grant to institution from Genentech-Roche and paid non-promotional speaking, consulting, and in-kind manuscript writing from Genentech–Roche. Professor Swain also reports grants to institution from Kailos Genetics. Professor Swain reports consulting fees paid from Athenex, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Molecular Templates, Biotheranostics, Natera, and Exact Sciences. Professor Swain reports support for attending meetings and travel from Sanofi, Daichi Sankyo, and Roche/Genentech. Third party in-kind manuscript writing from AstraZeneca. Dr Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and from Arnold Ventures; formerly received research support from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST) and from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644); and in addition, Dr Ross was an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. that was settled September 2022. Frank Rockhold receives research support from NIH, PCORI, BMS, AZ, American Regent, Gates Foundation, Eidos; Consulting for Janssen, Clover, Doctor Evidence and Intercept; DSMB for Lilly, AZ, Merck, Gilead, Novartis, Icosavax, Sanofi, UCB, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, pulmocide, Alkermes, Diurnal; nonprofit chairman of the board (unpaid) for Frontier Science Foundation; stock/stock options from GSK, Clover, Athira, Doctor Evidence, DataVant, Spencer Health Solutions, Adaptic Health. Dr Areti Angeliki Veroniki is a Statistical Associate Editor for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. The author team has no other potential conflicts of interest with respect to this research and/or publication to declare., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare myocarditis/pericarditis risk after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination versus SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to assess if myocarditis/pericarditis risk varies by vaccine dosing interval., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we used linked databases in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia between January 26, 2020, and September 9, 2021. We included individuals aged 12 or above who received an mRNA vaccine as the second dose or were SARS-CoV-2-positive by RT-PCR. The outcome was hospitalization/emergency department visit for myocarditis/pericarditis within 21 days of exposure. We calculated age- and sex-stratified incidence ratios (IRs) of myocarditis/pericarditis following mRNA vaccination versus SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also calculated myocarditis/pericarditis incidence by vaccine type, homologous/heterologous schedule, and dosing interval. We pooled province-specific estimates using meta-analysis., Results: Following 18,860,817 mRNA vaccinations and 860,335 SARS-CoV-2 infections, we observed 686 and 160 myocarditis/pericarditis cases, respectively. Myocarditis/pericarditis incidence was lower after vaccination than infection (IR [BNT162b2/SARS-CoV-2], 0.14; 95%CI, 0.07-0.29; IR [mRNA-1273/SARS-CoV-2], 0.28; 95%CI, 0.20-0.39). Within the vaccinated cohort, myocarditis/pericarditis incidence was lower with longer dosing intervals; IR (56 or more days/15-30 days) was 0.28 (95%CI, 0.19-0.41) for BNT162b2 and 0.26 (95%CI, 0.18-0.38) for mRNA-1273., Conclusion: Myocarditis/pericarditis risk was lower after mRNA vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection, and with longer intervals between primary vaccine doses., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Naveed Z. Janjua reports a relationship with 10.13039/100006483AbbVie Inc that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Naveed Z. Janjua reports a relationship with 10.13039/100005564Gilead Sciences that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Crown Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may enhance heart failure (HF) outcomes and address challenges associated with disease management. This study aims to review randomized evidence and identify knowledge gaps in SMIs for adult HF patients. Within the COMPAR-EU project, from 2010 to 2018, we conducted searches in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. We performed a descriptive analysis using predefined categories and developed an evidence map of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found 282 RCTs examining SMIs for HF patients, comparing two to four interventions, primarily targeting individual patients (97%) globally (34 countries, only 31% from an European country). These interventions involved support techniques such as information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), often through a mix of in-person and remote sessions (43%). Commonly assessed outcomes included quality of life, hospital admissions, mortality, exercise capacity, and self-efficacy. Few studies have focused on lower socio-economic or minority groups. Nurses (68%) and physicians (30%) were the primary providers, and most studies were at low risk of bias in generating a random sequence for participant allocation; however, the reporting was noticeably unclear of methods used to conceal the allocation process. Our analysis has revealed prevalent support techniques and delivery methods while highlighting methodological challenges. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers striving to optimize SMIs for individuals living with HF.

Introduction: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide estimates of the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The aim of this study is to conduct a methodological review to compile a preliminary list of concepts related to bias in NMAs., Methods and Analysis: We included papers that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, papers assessing the quality of NMAs, or method papers. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and unpublished literature (up to July 2020). We extracted items related to bias in NMAs. An item was excluded if it related to general systematic review quality or bias and was included in currently available tools such as ROBIS or AMSTAR 2. We reworded items, typically structured as questions, into concepts (i.e. general notions)., Results: One hundred eighty-one articles were assessed in full text and 58 were included. Of these articles, 12 were tools, checklists or journal standards; 13 were guidance documents for NMAs; 27 were studies related to bias or NMA methods; and 6 were papers assessing the quality of NMAs. These studies yielded 99 items of which the majority related to general systematic review quality and biases and were therefore excluded. The 22 items we included were reworded into concepts specific to bias in NMAs., Conclusions: A list of 22 concepts was included. This list is not intended to be used to assess biases in NMAs, but to inform the development of items to be included in our tool., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Chronic diseases are a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. In response to this challenge, self-management interventions (SMIs) have emerged as an essential tool in improving patient outcomes. However, the diverse and complex nature of SMIs pose significant challenges in measuring their effectiveness. This work aims to investigate the comparative effectiveness of SMIs on Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) outcomes., Methods: A rigorous analytical framework was employed to assess the relative effectiveness of different SMIs, encompassing both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA), as well as component network meta-analysis (CNMA). Various outcomes were considered, including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control, body mass index (BMI) reduction and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Visualization tools were also utilized to enhance the interpretation of results., Results: SMIs were found promising in improving clinical outcomes and patient-reported measures. However, considerable heterogeneity and inconsistency across studies challenged the validity of NMA results. CNMA along with various visualization tools offered insights into the contributions of individual SMI components, highlighting the complexity of these interventions., Discussion/conclusions: SMIs represent a valuable approach to managing chronic conditions, but their effectiveness is context-dependent. Further research is needed to elucidate the contextual factors influencing SMI outcomes. This work contributes to a comprehensive understanding of SMIs' role in T2DM management, aiming to aid decision-makers, clinicians, and patients in selecting tailored interventions.

Data sharing is essential for promoting scientific discoveries and informed decision-making in clinical practice. In 2013, PhRMA/EFPIA recognised the importance of data sharing and supported initiatives to enhance clinical trial data transparency and promote scientific advancements. However, despite these commitments, recent investigations indicate significant scope for improvements in data sharing by the pharmaceutical industry. Drawing on a decade of literature and policy developments, this article presents perspectives from a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and consumers. The focus is on policy and process updates to the PhRMA/EFPIA 2013 data sharing commitments, aiming to enhance the sharing and accessibility of participant-level data, clinical study reports, protocols, statistical analysis plans, lay summaries, and result publications from pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. The proposed updates provide clear recommendations regarding which data should be shared, when it should be shared, and under what conditions. The suggested improvements aim to develop a data sharing ecosystem that supports science and patient-centred care. Good data sharing principles require resources, time, and commitment. Notwithstanding these challenges, enhancing data sharing is necessary for efficient resource utilization, increased scientific collaboration, and better decision-making for patients and healthcare professionals., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to the ICU. We aimed to identify factors associated with ARDS in this population., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to January 14, 2022. Three reviewers independently screened articles and selected English-language studies reporting risk factors for ARDS in brain-injured adult patients. Data were extracted on ARDS incidence, adjusted and unadjusted risk factors, and clinical outcomes. Risk of bias was reported using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE., Results: We selected 23 studies involving 6,961,284 patients with acute brain injury. The pooled cumulative incidence of ARDS after brain injury was 17.0% (95%CI 10.7-25.8). In adjusted analysis, factors associated with ARDS included sepsis (odds ratio (OR) 4.38, 95%CI 2.37-8.10; high certainty), history of hypertension (OR 3.11, 95%CI 2.31-4.19; high certainty), pneumonia (OR 2.69, 95%CI 2.35-3.10; high certainty), acute kidney injury (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.30-1.59; moderate certainty), admission hypoxemia (OR 1.67, 95%CI 1.29-2.17; moderate certainty), male sex (OR 1.30, 95%CI 1.06-1.58; moderate certainty), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.27, 95%CI 1.13-1.44; moderate certainty). Development of ARDS was independently associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.39-7.00)., Conclusions: Multiple risk factors are associated with ARDS in brain-injured patients. These findings could be used to develop prognostic models for ARDS or as prognostic enrichment strategies for patient enrolment in future clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare they have no competing interests relevant to the submitted work. None of the authors have any financial or non-financial conflicts of interests related to the present manuscript., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. AAV is on the editorial board of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine but was not involved with the peer review process or decision to publish.

Background: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults., Methods: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT., Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care)., Information Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020., Outcome Measures: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate., Data Synthesis: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data., Results: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I 2  = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I 2  = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I 2  = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I 2  = 21%)., Conclusions: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018084810., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a critical component of evidence-based medicine and the evolution of patient care. However, the costs of conducting a RCT can be prohibitive. A promising approach toward reduction of costs and lessening of the burden of intensive and lengthy patient follow-up is the use of routinely collected healthcare data (RCHD), commonly called real-world data. We propose a scoping review to identify existing RCHD case definitions of breast cancer progression and survival and their diagnostic performance., Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to identify primary studies of women with either early-stage or metastatic breast cancer, managed with established therapies, that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of one or more RCHD-based case definitions or algorithms of disease progression (i.e., recurrence, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, or invasive disease-free survival) or survival (i.e., breast-cancer-free survival or overall survival) compared with a reference standard measure (e.g., chart review or a clinical trial dataset). Study characteristics and descriptions of algorithms will be extracted along with measures of the diagnostic accuracy of each algorithm (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value), which will be summarized both descriptively and in structured figures/tables., Discussion: Findings from this scoping review will be clinically meaningful for breast cancer researchers globally. Identification of feasible and accurate strategies to measure patient-important outcomes will potentially reduce RCT budgets as well as lessen the burden of intensive trial follow-up on patients., Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6D9RS )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD-MA) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can strengthen evidence used for decision making and is considered the "gold standard" approach. In this study, we present the importance, properties, and main approaches of conducting an IPD-MA. We exemplify the main approaches of conducting an IPD-MA and how these can be used to obtain subgroup effects through estimation of interaction terms. IPD-MA has several benefits over traditional aggregate data (AD) meta-analysis. These include standardization of definitions of outcomes and/or scales, reanalysis of eligible RCTs using the same analysis model across all studies, accounting for missing outcome data, detecting outliers, using participant-level covariates to explore intervention-by-covariate interactions, and tailoring intervention effects to participant characteristics. IPD-MA can be performed in either a 2-stage or 1-stage approach. We exemplify the presented methods using 2 illustrative examples. The first real-life example includes 6 studies assessing sonothrombolysis with or without addition of microspheres against IV thrombolysis alone (i.e., control) in acute ischemic stroke participants with large vessel occlusions. The second real-life example includes 7 studies evaluating the association between blood pressure levels after endovascular thrombectomy and functional improvement of acute ischemic stroke in patients with large vessel occlusion. IPD reviews can be associated with higher quality statistical analysis and may differ from AD reviews. Unlike individual trials that lack power and AD meta-analysis results, which suffer from confounding and aggregation bias, the use of IPD allows us to explore intervention-by-covariate interactions. However, a key limitation of conducting an IPD-MA is retrieval of IPD from original RCTs. Time and resources should be carefully planned before embarking on retrieving IPD., (© 2023 American Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Evidence has shown that private industry-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are more likely to report intervention-favourable results compared with other sources of funding. However, this has not been assessed in network meta-analyses (NMAs)., Objectives: To (a) explore the recommendation rate of industry-sponsored NMAs on their company's intervention, and (b) assess reporting in NMAs of pharmacologic interventions according to their funding type., Methods: Design: Scoping review of published NMAs with RCTs., Information Sources: We used a pre-existing NMA database including 1,144 articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published between January 2013 and July 2018., Study Selection: NMAs with transparent funding information and comparing pharmacologic interventions with/without placebo., Synthesis: We captured whether NMAs recommended their own or another company's intervention, classified NMAs according to their primary outcome findings (i.e., statistical significance and direction of effect), and according to the overall reported conclusion. We assessed reporting using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to NMA (PRISMA-NMA) 32-item checklist. We matched and compared industry with non-industry NMAs having the same research question, disease, primary outcome, and pharmacologic intervention against placebo/control., Results: We retrieved 658 NMAs, which reported a median of 23 items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist (interquartile range [IQR]: 21-26). NMAs were categorized as 314 publicly-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 24.5, IQR 22-27), 208 non-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 23, IQR 20-25), and 136 industry/mixed-sponsored NMAs (PRISMA-NMA median 21, IQR 19-24). Most industry-sponsored NMAs recommended their own manufactured drug (92%), suggested a statistically significant positive treatment-effect for their drug (82%), and reported an overall positive conclusion (92%). Our matched NMAs (25 industry vs 25 non-industry) indicated that industry-sponsored NMAs had favourable conclusions more often (100% vs 80%) and were associated with larger (but not statistically significantly different) efficacy effect sizes (in 61% of NMAs) compared with non-industry-sponsored NMAs., Conclusions: Differences in completeness of reporting and author characteristics were apparent among NMAs with different types of funding. Publicly-sponsored NMAs had the best reporting and published their findings in higher impact-factor journals. Knowledge users should be mindful of this potential funding bias in NMAs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To conduct an evidence map on self-management interventions and patient-relevant outcomes for adults living with overweight/obesity., Methods: Following Arksey and O'Malley methodology, we searched in five electronical databases including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for overweight/obesity. We used the terms "self-management", "adult" and "obesity" for content. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy., Results: We identified 497 RCTs (58% US, 20% Europe) including 99,741 (median 112, range 11-5145) adults living with overweight/obesity. Most research evaluated clinical outcomes (617, 55%) and behaviors adherence (255, 23%). Empowerment skills, quality of life and satisfaction were less targeted (8%, 7%, 0.2%, respectively). The most frequent techniques included sharing information (858, 99%), goal setting (619, 72%) and self-monitoring training (614, 71%), provided face-to-face (386, 45%) or in combination with remote techniques (256, 30%). Emotional management, social support and shared-decision were less frequent (18%, 26%, 4%). Socio-economic status, minorities or health literacy were seldom reported., Conclusion: There is a need of widening the scope of research by focusing on outcomes important to patients, assessing emotional/social/share-decision support, exploring remote techniques and including vulnerable populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an established method for assessing the comparative efficacy and safety of competing interventions. It is often the case that we deal with interventions that consist of multiple, possibly interacting, components. Examples of interventions' components include characteristics of the intervention, mode (face-to-face, remotely etc.), location (hospital, home etc.), provider (physician, nurse etc.), time of communication (synchronous, asynchronous etc.) and other context related components. Networks of multicomponent interventions are typically sparse and classical NMA inference is not straightforward and prone to confounding. Ideally, we would like to disentangle the effect of each component to find out what works (or does not work). To this aim, we propose novel ways of visualizing the NMA results, describe their use, and illustrate their application in real-life examples. We developed an R package viscomp to produce all the suggested figures., (© 2022 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in network meta-analysis (NMA) to underpin patient care and are the best analyses to support the development of guidelines about the use of healthcare interventions for a specific condition. However, barriers to IPD retrieval pose a major threat. The aim of this study was to present barriers we encountered during retrieval of IPD from RCTs in two published systematic reviews with IPD-NMA., Methods: We evaluated retrieval of IPD from RCTs for IPD-NMA in Alzheimer's dementia and type 1 diabetes. We requested IPD from authors, industry sponsors and data repositories, and recorded IPD retrieval, reasons for IPD unavailability, and retrieval challenges., Results: In total, we identified 108 RCTs: 78 industry sponsored, 11 publicly sponsored and 19 with no funding information. After failing to obtain IPD from any trial authors, we requested it from industry sponsors. Seven of the 17 industry sponsors shared IPD for 12 950 participants (59%) through proprietary-specific data sharing platforms from 26 RCTs (33%). We found that lack of RCT identifiers (eg, National Clinical Trial number) and unclear data ownership were major challenges in IPD retrieval. Incomplete information in retrieved datasets was another important problem that led to exclusion of RCTs from the NMA. There were also practical challenges in obtaining IPD from or analysing it within platforms, and additional costs were incurred in accessing IPD this way., Conclusions: We found no clear evidence of retrieval bias (where IPD availability was linked to trial findings) in either IPD-NMA, but because retrieval bias could impact NMA findings, subsequent decision-making and guideline development, this should be considered when assessing risk of bias in IPD syntheses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AAV is on the editorial board for the journal but was not involved with the peer review process or decision to publish., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2., Methods: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA)., Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection., Information Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021., Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies., Data Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA., Results: We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined., Conclusions: Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required., Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021289712., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Older adults experience symptoms of depression, leading to suffering and increased morbidity and mortality. Although we have effective depression therapies, physical distancing and other public health measures have severely limited access to in-person interventions., Objective: To describe the efficacy of virtual interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in community-dwelling older adults., Design: Systematic review., Setting: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Libraries, PsycINFO, and gray literature from inception to July 5, 2021., Participants and Interventions: We included randomized trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of virtual interventions to any other virtual intervention or usual care in community-dwelling adults ≥60 years old experiencing symptoms of depression or depression as an outcome., Measurements: The primary outcome was change in symptoms of depression measured by any depression scale., Results: We screened 12,290 abstracts and 830 full text papers. We included 15 RCTs (3100 participants). Five RCTs examined persons with depression symptoms at baseline and ten examined depression as an outcome only. Included studies demonstrated feasibility of interventions such as internet or telephone cognitive behavioral therapy with some papers showing statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms., Conclusions: There is a paucity of studies examining virtual interventions in older adults with depression. Given difficulty in accessing in-person therapies in a pandemic and poor access for people living in rural and remote regions, there is an urgent need to explore efficacy, effectiveness, and implementation of virtual therapies.

Background: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.e. because it was designed to assess biases only) or other similar quality appraisal tools (eg, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR 2]) to assess quality of systematic reviews. The RoB NMA tool will assess NMA biases and limitations regarding how the analysis was planned, data were analysed and results were presented, including the way in which the evidence was assembled and interpreted., Objectives: Conduct (a) a Delphi process to determine expert opinion on an item's inclusion and (b) a knowledge user survey to widen its impact., Design: Cross-sectional survey and Delphi process., Methods: Delphi panellists were asked to rate whether items should be included. All agreed-upon item were included in a second round of the survey (defined as 70% agreement). We surveyed knowledge users' views and preferences about the importance, utility and willingness to use the RoB NMA tool to evaluate evidence in practice and in policymaking. We included 12 closed and 10 open-ended questions, and we followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks., Results: 22 items were entered into a Delphi survey of which 28 respondents completed round 1, and 22 completed round 2. Seven items did not reach consensus in round 2. A total of 298 knowledge users participated in the survey (14% respondent rate). 75% indicated that their organisation produced NMAs, and 78% showed high interest in the tool, especially if they had received adequate training (84%). Most knowledge users and Delphi panellists preferred a tool to assess both bias in individual NMA results and authors' conclusions. Response bias in our sample is a major limitation as knowledge users working in high-income countries were more represented. One of the limitations of the Delphi process is that it depends on the purposive selection of experts and their availability, thus limiting the variability in perspectives and scientific disciplines., Conclusions: This Delphi process and knowledge user survey informs the development of the RoB NMA tool., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AAV was an Associate Editor for the journal, but was not involved with the decision or peer-review process., (© 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.)

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM)., Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens., Data Extraction and Synthesis: We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD., Results: We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03)., Conclusions: Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015023511., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To explore the efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened from inception to 31 March 2021., Review Methods: Studies reporting on the risk of HPV infection and recurrence of disease related to HPV infection after local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease in individuals who were vaccinated were included. The primary outcome measure was risk of recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) after local surgical treatment, with follow-up as reported by individual studies. Secondary outcome measures were risk of HPV infection or other lesions related to HPV infection. Independent and in duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were performed with ROBINS-I and RoB-2 tools for observational studies and randomised controlled trials, respectively. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was implemented for the primary outcome. Observational studies and randomised controlled trials were analysed separately from post hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with a random effects meta-analysis model. The restricted maximum likelihood was used as an estimator for heterogeneity, and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used to derive confidence intervals., Results: 22 articles met the inclusion criteria of the review; 18 of these studies also reported data from a non-vaccinated group and were included in the meta-analyses (12 observational studies, two randomised controlled trials, and four post hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials). The risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was reduced in individuals who were vaccinated compared with those who were not vaccinated (11 studies, 19 909 participants; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.60; I 2 =58%, τ 2 =0.14, median follow-up 36 months, interquartile range 24-43.5). The effect estimate was even stronger when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to HPV subtypes HPV16 or HPV18 (six studies, 1879 participants; risk ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.43; I 2 =0%, τ 2 =0). Confidence in the meta-analysis for CIN2+ overall and CIN2+ related to HPV16 or HPV18, assessed by GRADE, ranged from very low to moderate, probably because of publication bias and inconsistency in the studies included in the meta-analysis. The risk of recurrence of CIN3 was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated but uncertainty was large (three studies, 17 757 participants; 0.28, 0.01 to 6.37; I 2 =71%, τ 2 =1.23). Evidence of benefit was lacking for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal intraepithelial neoplasia, genital warts, and persistent and incident HPV infections, although the number of studies and participants in each outcome was low., Conclusion: HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision. GRADE assessment for the quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive. Large scale, high quality randomised controlled trials are required to establish the level of effectiveness and cost of HPV vaccination in women undergoing treatment for diseases related to HPV infection., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021237350., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the NIHR EME for the submitted work; the authors declare no conflict of interest with regards to the presented work; a number of authors are investigators of the NIHR EME funded NOVEL trial (MK, KSK, PS, JD, BS, PN, and IK); this trial is also supported by MSD who supplied the vaccines for the trial., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the risks of treatment failure and preterm birth associated with various treatment techniques., Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting on oncological or reproductive outcomes after CIN treatments from database inception until March 9, 2022, without language restrictions. We included studies of women with CIN, glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, or stage IA1 cervical cancer treated with excision (cold knife conisation [CKC], laser conisation, and large loop excision of the transformation zone [LLETZ]) or ablation (radical diathermy, laser ablation, cold coagulation, and cryotherapy). We excluded women treated with hysterectomy. The primary outcomes were any treatment failure (defined as any abnormal histology or cytology) and preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation). The network for preterm birth also included women with untreated CIN (untreated colposcopy group). The main reference group was LLETZ for treatment failure and the untreated colposcopy group for preterm birth. For randomised controlled trials, we extracted group-level summary data, and for observational studies, we extracted relative treatment effect estimates adjusted for potential confounders, when available, and we did random-effects network meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed within-study and across-study risk of bias using Cochrane tools. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018115495 and CRD42018115508., Findings: 7880 potential citations were identified for the outcome of treatment failure and 4107 for the outcome of preterm birth. After screening and removal of duplicates, the network for treatment failure included 19 240 participants across 71 studies (25 randomised) and the network for preterm birth included 68 817 participants across 29 studies (two randomised). Compared with LLETZ, risk of treatment failure was reduced for other excisional methods (laser conisation: OR 0·59 [95% CI 0·44-0·79] and CKC: 0·63 [0·50-0·81]) and increased for laser ablation (1·69 [1·27-2·24]) and cryotherapy (1·84 [1·33-2·56]). No differences were found for the comparison of cold coagulation versus LLETZ (1·09 [0·68-1·74]) but direct data were based on two small studies only. Compared with the untreated colposcopy group, risk of preterm birth was increased for all excisional techniques (CKC: 2·27 [1·70-3·02]; laser conisation: 1·77 [1·29-2·43]; and LLETZ: 1·37 [1·16-1·62]), whereas no differences were found for ablative methods (laser ablation: 1·05 [0·78-1·41]; cryotherapy: 1·01 [0·35-2·92]; and cold coagulation: 0·67 [0·02-29·15]). The evidence was based mostly on observational studies with their inherent risks of bias, and the credibility of many comparisons was low., Interpretation: More radical excisional techniques reduce the risk of treatment failure but increase the risk of subsequent preterm birth. Although there is uncertainty, ablative treatments probably do not increase risk of preterm birth, but are associated with higher failure rates than excisional techniques. Although we found LLETZ to have balanced effectiveness and reproductive morbidity, treatment choice should rely on a woman's age, size and location of lesion, and future family planning., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research: Research for Patient Benefit., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests OE has received consulting fees from Biogen (payments were made to their University). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the comparative effectiveness and ranking of minimally invasive treatments (MITs) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)., Materials and Methods: We searched multiple databases up to 24 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the following treatments: convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT; or Rezūm); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL; or Urolift); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham surgery. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis., Results: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men. The overall certainty of the evidence of most outcomes according to GRADE was low to very low. Compared to TURP, we found that PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptoms, while WVTT, TUMT and TIND may result in worse urological symptoms. MITs may result in little to no difference in quality of life, compared to TURP. MITs may result in a large reduction in major adverse events compared to TURP. We were uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP, however, TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates. We were very uncertain of the effects of MITs on erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among MITs, PUL and PAE had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and quality of life, TUMT for major adverse events, WVTT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. Excluding WVTT and TIND, for which there were only studies with short-term (3-month) follow-up, PUL had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for retreatment., Conclusions: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and quality of life compared to TURP at short-term follow-up., (© 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International.)

Objectives: To (a) identify methodological and application papers reporting a model developed specifically for diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA) or a hierarchical meta-regression method for comparing at least three index tests; (b) review and summarize the characteristics of the methods and the application papers; and (c) compare DTA-NMA and hierarchical meta-regression methods empirically., Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review and searched major databases until March 3rd, 2021. We assessed the characteristics of the identified methods, conducted a descriptive analysis of characteristics of the application articles, and applied the DTA-NMA and meta-regression methods to the available data., Results: We included 49 articles (plus one companion report), of which nine were methodological (describing 11 DTA-NMA methods) and 40 were application papers (data available for 32 DTA-NMAs). Our results showed a steep increase in recent years in DTA-NMA publications. DTA-NMA models may lead to different results. Although sensitivity estimates were comparable between meta-regression and DTA-NMA models, specificity estimates were higher in meta-regression., Conclusion: The choice of a DTA-NMA model will depend on the available data, including the use of different thresholds for test positivity, different study designs, and software familiarity. Selection between the methods may impact on the NMA results, especially for specificity., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD)., Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016., Participants: 80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients., Interventions: Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo., Data Extraction and Synthesis: We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis)., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events., Results: Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective., Conclusions: The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient's characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015023507., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis(FA/ME) panel brings benefits in clinical practice, but its diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the DTA of FA/ME for the aetiological diagnostic in patients with suspected central nervous system(CNS) infection., Methods: We performed a systematic review with DTA meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020139285). We searched Embase, Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science from inception until September 1st, 2021. We assessed the study-level risk of bias with the QUADAS-2 tool and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the synthesised evidence. We included studies that simultaneously measured the reference test (CSF/blood culture for bacteria, and specific polymerase chain reaction for viruses) and the FA/ME in patients with suspected CNS infection. We performed random-effects bivariate meta-analysis models of combined sensitivity and specificity using CSF/blood cultures(reference test 1) and a final diagnosis adjudication based on clinical/laboratory criteria (reference test 2)., Findings: We included 19 studies (11,351 participants). For all bacteria with reference test 1 (16 studies/6183 patients) sensitivity was estimated at 89·5% (95%CI 81·1-94·4), and specificity at 97·4% (95%CI 94-98·9). With reference test 2 (15 studies/5,524 patients), sensitivity was estimated at 92·1%(95%CI 86·8-95·3) and specificity at 99.2(95%CI 98·3-99·6) For herpes simplex virus-2(HSV-2), enteroviruses, and Varicella-Zoster virus (VZV), we obtained sensitivities between 75·5 and 93·8%, and specificities above 99% (reference test 1). Certainty of the evidence was low., Interpretation: FA/ME may have acceptable-to-high sensitivities and high specificities for identifying bacteria, especially for S.pneumoniae , and viruses, especially for HSV-2, and enteroviruses. Sensitivities for L. monocytogenes, H.influenzae, E.coli , and HSV-1 were suboptimal., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed., Methods and Findings: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events., Conclusions: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.