Search

Background: Growing political attention to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) offers a rare opportunity for achieving meaningful action. Many governments have developed national AMR action plans, but most have not yet implemented policy interventions to reduce antimicrobial overuse. A systematic evidence map can support governments in making evidence-informed decisions about implementing programs to reduce AMR, by identifying, describing, and assessing the full range of evaluated government policy options to reduce antimicrobial use in humans.Methods and Findings: Seven databases were searched from inception to January 28, 2019, (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PAIS Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and PubMed). We identified studies that (1) clearly described a government policy intervention aimed at reducing human antimicrobial use, and (2) applied a quantitative design to measure the impact. We found 69 unique evaluations of government policy interventions carried out across 4 of the 6 WHO regions. These evaluations included randomized controlled trials (n = 4), non-randomized controlled trials (n = 3), controlled before-and-after designs (n = 7), interrupted time series designs (n = 25), uncontrolled before-and-after designs (n = 18), descriptive designs (n = 10), and cohort designs (n = 2). From these we identified 17 unique policy options for governments to reduce the human use of antimicrobials. Many studies evaluated public awareness campaigns (n = 17) and antimicrobial guidelines (n = 13); however, others offered different policy options such as professional regulation, restricted reimbursement, pay for performance, and prescription requirements. Identifying these policies can inform the development of future policies and evaluations in different contexts and health systems. Limitations of our study include the possible omission of unpublished initiatives, and that policies not evaluated with respect to antimicrobial use have not been captured in this review.Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first study to provide policy makers with synthesized evidence on specific government policy interventions addressing AMR. In the future, governments should ensure that AMR policy interventions are evaluated using rigorous study designs and that study results are published.Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42017067514. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a global obesity crisis, particularly among women and disadvantaged populations. Early-life intervention to prevent childhood obesity is a priority for public health, global health, and clinical practice. Understanding the association between childhood obesity and maternal pre-pregnancy weight status would inform policy and practice by allowing one to estimate the potential for offspring health gain through channelling resources into intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the dose-response association between maternal body mass index (BMI) and childhood obesity in the offspring.Methods and Findings: Searches in MEDLINE, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo were carried out in August 2017 and updated in March 2019. Supplementary searches included hand-searching reference lists, performing citation searching, and contacting authors. Two researchers carried out independent screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Observational studies published in English and reporting associations between continuous and/or categorical maternal and child BMI or z-score were included. Categorical outcomes were child obesity (≥95th percentile, primary outcome), overweight/obesity (≥85th percentile), and overweight (85th to 95th percentile). Linear and nonlinear dose-response meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Studies that could not be included in meta-analyses were summarised narratively. Seventy-nine of 41,301 studies identified met the inclusion criteria (n = 59 cohorts). Meta-analyses of child obesity included 20 studies (n = 88,872); child overweight/obesity, 22 studies (n = 181,800); and overweight, 10 studies (n = 53,238). Associations were nonlinear and there were significantly increased odds of child obesity with maternal obesity (odds ratio [OR] 3.64, 95% CI 2.68-4.95) and maternal overweight (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.62-2.19). Significantly increased odds were observed for child overweight/obesity (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.10-3.46) and for child overweight (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.25, 2.59) with maternal obesity. A limitation of this research is that the included studies did not always report the data in a format that enabled inclusion in this complex meta-analysis.Conclusions: This research has identified a 264% increase in the odds of child obesity when mothers have obesity before conception. This study provides substantial evidence for the need to develop interventions that commence prior to conception, to support women of childbearing age with weight management in order to halt intergenerational obesity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists.Methods and Findings: Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality.Conclusion: As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cesarean birth rates continue to rise worldwide with recent (2016) reported rates of 24.5% in Western Europe, 32% in North America, and 41% in South America. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the long-term risks and benefits of cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies. The primary maternal outcome was pelvic floor dysfunction, the primary baby outcome was asthma, and the primary subsequent pregnancy outcome was perinatal death.Methods and Findings: Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were systematically searched for published studies in human subjects (last search 25 May 2017), supplemented by manual searches. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large (more than 1,000 participants) prospective cohort studies with greater than or equal to one-year follow-up comparing outcomes of women delivering by cesarean delivery and by vaginal delivery. Two assessors screened 30,327 abstracts. Studies were graded for risk of bias by two assessors using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist and the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-Randomized Studies. Results were pooled in fixed effects meta-analyses or in random effects models when significant heterogeneity was present (I2 ≥ 40%). One RCT and 79 cohort studies (all from high income countries) were included, involving 29,928,274 participants. Compared to vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with decreased risk of urinary incontinence, odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66; n = 58,900; 8 studies) and pelvic organ prolapse (OR 0.29, 0.17 to 0.51; n = 39,208; 2 studies). Children delivered by cesarean delivery had increased risk of asthma up to the age of 12 years (OR 1.21, 1.11 to 1.32; n = 887,960; 13 studies) and obesity up to the age of 5 years (OR 1.59, 1.33 to 1.90; n = 64,113; 6 studies). Pregnancy after cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of miscarriage (OR 1.17, 1.03 to 1.32; n = 151,412; 4 studies) and stillbirth (OR 1.27, 1.15 to 1.40; n = 703,562; 8 studies), but not perinatal mortality (OR 1.11, 0.89 to 1.39; n = 91,429; 2 studies). Pregnancy following cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of placenta previa (OR 1.74, 1.62 to 1.87; n = 7,101,692; 10 studies), placenta accreta (OR 2.95, 1.32 to 6.60; n = 705,108; 3 studies), and placental abruption (OR 1.38, 1.27 to 1.49; n = 5,667,160; 6 studies). This is a comprehensive review adhering to a registered protocol, and guidelines for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology were followed, but it is based on predominantly observational data, and in some meta-analyses, between-study heterogeneity is high; therefore, causation cannot be inferred and the results should be interpreted with caution.Conclusions: When compared with vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery is associated with a reduced rate of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, but this should be weighed against the association with increased risks for fertility, future pregnancy, and long-term childhood outcomes. This information could be valuable in counselling women on mode of delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]).Methods and Findings: An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process.Conclusions: The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paul Pinsky of the US National Cancer Institute and colleagues describe the implementation and outcomes of web-based data sharing from the PLCO and NLST cancer screening trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintaining high levels of adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a challenge across settings and populations. Understanding the relative importance of different barriers to adherence will help inform the targeting of different interventions and future research priorities.Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 01 January 1997 to 31 March 2016 for studies reporting barriers to adherence to ART. We calculated pooled proportions of reported barriers to adherence per age group (adults, adolescents, and children). We included data from 125 studies that provided information about adherence barriers for 17,061 adults, 1,099 children, and 856 adolescents. We assessed differences according to geographical location and level of economic development. The most frequently reported individual barriers included forgetting (adults 41.4%, 95% CI 37.3%-45.4%; adolescents 63.1%, 95% CI 46.3%-80.0%; children/caregivers 29.2%, 95% CI 20.1%-38.4%), being away from home (adults 30.4%, 95% CI 25.5%-35.2%; adolescents 40.7%, 95% CI 25.7%-55.6%; children/caregivers 18.5%, 95% CI 10.3%-26.8%), and a change to daily routine (adults 28.0%, 95% CI 20.9%-35.0%; adolescents 32.4%, 95% CI 0%-75.0%; children/caregivers 26.3%, 95% CI 15.3%-37.4%). Depression was reported as a barrier to adherence by more than 15% of patients across all age categories (adults 15.5%, 95% CI 12.8%-18.3%; adolescents 25.7%, 95% CI 17.7%-33.6%; children 15.1%, 95% CI 3.9%-26.3%), while alcohol/substance misuse was commonly reported by adults (12.9%, 95% CI 9.7%-16.1%) and adolescents (28.8%, 95% CI 11.8%-45.8%). Secrecy/stigma was a commonly cited barrier to adherence, reported by more than 10% of adults and children across all regions (adults 13.6%, 95% CI 11.9%-15.3%; children/caregivers 22.3%, 95% CI 10.2%-34.5%). Among adults, feeling sick (15.9%, 95% CI 13.0%-18.8%) was a more commonly cited barrier to adherence than feeling well (9.3%, 95% CI 7.2%-11.4%). Health service-related barriers, including distance to clinic (adults 17.5%, 95% CI 13.0%-21.9%) and stock outs (adults 16.1%, 95% CI 11.7%-20.4%), were also frequently reported. Limitations of this review relate to the fact that included studies differed in approaches to assessing adherence barriers and included variable durations of follow up. Studies that report self-reported adherence will likely underestimate the frequency of non-adherence. For children, barriers were mainly reported by caregivers, which may not correspond to the most important barriers faced by children.Conclusions: Patients on ART face multiple barriers to adherence, and no single intervention will be sufficient to ensure that high levels of adherence to treatment and virological suppression are sustained. For maximum efficacy, health providers should consider a more triaged approach that first identifies patients at risk of poor adherence and then seeks to establish the support that is needed to overcome the most important barriers to adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events.Methods and Findings: Studies were identified from 15 databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) and by handsearching, reference checking, internet searches, and contacting experts. The last database searches were conducted in July 2016. There were 28 methodological evaluations that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 studies compared the proportion of trials reporting adverse events by publication status. The median percentage of published documents with adverse events information was 46% compared to 95% in the corresponding unpublished documents. There was a similar pattern with unmatched studies, for which 43% of published studies contained adverse events information compared to 83% of unpublished studies. A total of 11 studies compared the numbers of adverse events in matched published and unpublished documents. The percentage of adverse events that would have been missed had each analysis relied only on the published versions varied between 43% and 100%, with a median of 64%. Within these 11 studies, 24 comparisons of named adverse events such as death, suicide, or respiratory adverse events were undertaken. In 18 of the 24 comparisons, the number of named adverse events was higher in unpublished than published documents. Additionally, 2 other studies demonstrated that there are substantially more types of adverse events reported in matched unpublished than published documents. There were 20 meta-analyses that reported the odds ratios (ORs) and/or risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events with and without unpublished data. Inclusion of unpublished data increased the precision of the pooled estimates (narrower 95% confidence intervals) in 15 of the 20 pooled analyses, but did not markedly change the direction or statistical significance of the risk in most cases. The main limitations of this review are that the included case examples represent only a small number amongst thousands of meta-analyses of harms and that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences between published and unpublished data are more likely to be published.Conclusions: There is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees.Methods and Findings: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements.Conclusions: Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics.Conclusions: An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]