Search

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

Objectives: We aimed to assess whether limiting the inclusion criteria solely to English-language publications affected the overall conclusions of evidence syntheses.Study Design and Setting: Our analyses used a dataset of a previous methods study that included 59 randomly selected Cochrane intervention reviews with no language restrictions. First, we ascertained the publication language of all 2,026 included publications. Next, we excluded studies based on the following criteria: (1) publication solely in non-English language, or (2) main publication (in case of multiple publications of the same study) in non-English language. We then re-calculated meta-analyses for outcomes that were presented in the main summary of findings tables of the Cochrane reports. If the direction of the effect estimate or the statistical significance changed, authors of the respective Cochrane reviews were consulted to assess whether the new evidence base would have changed their conclusions. The primary outcome of our analyses examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of non-English publications. We set the threshold for the approach as noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proportion of changed conclusions did not cross a margin of 10%.Results: Across all 59 Cochrane reviews, 29 (49%) included 80 non-English publications. For 16 (27%) of these Cochrane reviews, the exclusion of non-English publications resulted in the exclusion of at least one study. In the remaining 13 Cochrane reviews, the non-English publications were not the only or main publication of the study or they did not contribute to the main summary of the findings table, so their exclusion did not result in an exclusion of the study.Overall, the exclusion of non-English publications led to the exclusion of 31 studies contributing to 40 outcomes. For 38 of the 40 outcomes, the exclusion of non-English studies did not markedly alter the size or direction of effect estimates or statistical significance. In two outcomes, the statistical significance changed, but authors would have still drawn the same conclusion, albeit with less certainty. Thus, the proportion of changed conclusions in our sample was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-0.6), which indicated the noninferiority of the approach. However, the majority of excluded studies were small.Conclusion: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objective To summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of soil remediation to prevent or reduce lead exposure. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, the Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Web of Science, and Scopus from 1980 to February 15, 2021. We also performed reference list checking, hand-searched websites, and contacted experts. Eligible studies evaluated the effect of soil remediation to prevent or reduce lead exposure in humans of any age. We screened all records dually; one investigator performed the data extraction; a second checked for completeness and accuracy. Two investigators independently rated the risk of bias of included studies and graded the certainty of evidence. We synthesized findings narratively. Results We identified 6614 potentially relevant publications, all focused on children, of which five studies (six records) fulfilled our prespecified inclusion criteria. The number of evaluated participants ranged from 31 to 1425, with follow-up periods of 11 months to one year. The primary soil remediation method was the replacement of the upper layer with clean soil. Outcomes were limited to blood lead levels (BLL), dust lead levels, and soil lead levels. The largest study, a controlled before– after study (n = 1425) reported favorable effects of soil remediation compared to no intervention. This finding was consistent with results from two cross-sectional studies and one uncontrolled before–after study. One year post-remediation, the mean reduction in BLL was 2.1 μg/dL (p, Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image, Highlights • Lead exposure from contaminated soil is an important public health issue, concerning both children and adults. • Soil remediation alone or in combination with other interventions appears to reduce the blood lead levels in children. • The effect of soil remediation on health outcomes, in high lead exposure areas or in low/middle-income countries is unclear.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention.

Background Health promotion programs can only lead to improvements in health outcomes if they are effectively implemented. However, most studies assessing implementation success focus on only one condition, although more conditions influence this process. Therefore, evidence is scarce on what conditions play a role in successful implementation and how they interact. Hence, we aimed to identify which combinations of teacher and implementation process characteristics affected the emotional and social school experience (SCE) of pupils participating in a school-based health promotion program. Methods This study was part of an effectiveness and process evaluation including 24 intervention and 27 control classes. We used fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify combinations of conditions that were associated with either an increase or no increase in the outcome SCE in comparison to the control group at 20 months post intervention. We deductively selected five conditions based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: teachers’ perceived self-efficacy, teachers’ expectations of the benefits of the intervention, teachers’ previous knowledge about the intervention, dosage of physical activity breaks, and quality of the implementation. Results We identified five different pathways that led to no increase in the pupils’ outcome (parameters of fit: consistency 94%, coverage 66%). The combination of an unsatisfying quality of implementing the intervention and a low previous knowledge about the intervention showed the highest empirical relevance. Similarly, fewer physical activity breaks in combination with other conditions impeded the program’s success. Furthermore, we identified two different pathways characterizing ways to success (consistency: 81%, coverage: 52%). The most relevant combination was good quality implementation of physical activity breaks, implemented by teachers with a high self-efficacy, and a good previous knowledge about the intervention. Conclusions QCA has potential for an in-depth analysis of complex interventions as it can rely on small to medium sample sizes and analyze pathways to success and non-success separately. The investigated program can be improved by considering the following suggestions: The quality of the implementation process should be monitored during the implementation phase, and regular feedback loops and learning opportunities for teachers should accompany a program. Clear recommendations regarding the dosage should be established. Trial registration German register of clinical studies: DRKS00000622. Retrospectively registered: December 3, 2010, (http://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do). Approved by the Ethics Committee of Lower Austria (GS4-EK-4/107–2010). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6284-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives To develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority. Study Design and Setting Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided. Results Based on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted. Conclusion The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.

Objective: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible., Study design and setting: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction., Results: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive., Conclusion: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies., peer-reviewed

Background and Objective Rapid reviews were first mentioned in the literature in 1997, when Best et al. described the rapid health technology assessment program in the south and west regions of England but did not provide a formal definition. More recently, the only consensus around a rapid review definition is that a formal definition does not exist. The primary aim of this work is to create a repository of existing definitions and to identify key themes, which may help the knowledge synthesis community in defining rapid review products. Methods A systematic scoping review was performed to identify definitions used in journal-published rapid reviews written in English between 2017 and January 2019. We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science on December 21, 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using a priori–defined methods published in a protocol. Definitions from rapid review methods articles (published from 1997 onward) identified in another scoping review were added to the results, and all definitions were thematically analyzed using NVivo. A quantitative analysis was also performed around studies cited. Results Definitions from 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods articles were included in the thematic analysis. Eight key themes were identified: accelerated/rapid process or approach, variation in methods shortcuts, focus/depth/breadth of scope, compare and contrast to a full traditional systematic review, stakeholder rationale, resource efficiency rationale, systematic approach, bias/limitations. Secondary referencing was a common occurrence. Conclusion Thematic analysis performed in this systematic scoping review has allowed for the creation of a suggested definition for rapid reviews that can be used to inform the systematic review community.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks. Objectives To assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID‐19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission. Search methods An information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020. Selection criteria Cohort studies, case‐control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID‐19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full‐text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS‐I for non‐randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non‐randomised, non‐controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs. Main results We included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID‐19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta‐analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non‐randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non‐controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID‐19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID‐19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID‐19, 1 on SARS, low‐certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID‐19, low‐certainty evidence). Very low‐certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID‐19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID‐19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID‐19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID‐19, low‐certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID‐19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID‐19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low‐certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID‐19 (2 observational studies on COVID‐19 and 2 observational studies on SARS). Authors' conclusions The current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID‐19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID‐19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube‐University‐Krems. The update was self‐initiated by the review authors., Plain language summary Does quarantine, alone or in combination with other public health measures, control coronavirus (COVID‐19)? Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is caused by a new virus that has spread quickly throughout the world. Most infected people either experience no symptoms or suffer mild, flu‐like symptoms, but some become seriously ill, and may die. There is no vaccine (a medicine that stops people catching a specific disease) for COVID‐19, so other ways of slowing its spread are needed. One way of controlling the disease is quarantine. This means separating healthy people from other healthy people, who may have the virus after being in close contact with an infected person, or because they have returned from an area with high infection rates. Similar recommendations include isolation (like quarantine, but for people who tested positive for COVID‐19) and physical distancing (people without symptoms keep a distance from each other). What did we want to find out? We wanted to find out whether and how effectively quarantine stops COVID‐19 spreading and if it prevents death. We wanted to know if it was more effective when combined with other measures, and how much it costs. Study characteristics COVID‐19 is spreading rapidly, so we needed to answer these questions as quickly as possible. This meant we shortened some steps of the normal Cochrane Review process. Nevertheless, we are confident that these changes do not affect our overall conclusions. We looked for studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine, anywhere, on the spread and severity of COVID‐19. We also looked for studies that assessed quarantine alongside other measures, such as isolation, physical distancing or school closures. COVID‐19 is a new disease, so, to find as much evidence as possible, we also looked for studies on similar viruses, such as SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome). Studies measured the number of COVID‐19, SARS or MERS cases, how many people were infected, how quickly the virus spread, how many people died, and the costs of quarantine. Key results We included 51 studies. Thirty‐two studies focused on COVID‐19, 14 on SARS, three on SARS plus other viruses, and two on MERS. Most studies combined existing data from multiple sources and assumptions to create a model (a simulation) for predicting how events might occur over time, for people in different situations (called modelling studies). Four COVID‐19 studies observed the effects of quarantine (observational studies) on 6064 individuals in China, Greece and Singapore. Twenty‐eight COVID‐19 studies simulated outbreaks in Algeria, China, Canada, Italy, Kazakhstan, Nepal, UK, USA, Singapore, South Korea, on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, and in a general population. Four studies looked back on the effect of quarantine on 178,122 people involved in SARS and MERS outbreaks. The remaining 15 studies modelled SARS and MERS outbreaks. The modelling studies all found that simulated quarantine measures reduce the number of people with COVID‐19 and the number of deaths. With quarantine, estimates showed a minimum reduction in the number of people with COVID‐19 of 44%, and a maximum reduction of 96%. Similarly, with quarantine, estimates of the number of deaths showed a minimum reduction of 31%, and a maximum reduction of 76%. Combining quarantine with other measures, such as closing schools or physical distancing, may be more effective at reducing the spread of COVID‐19 than quarantine alone. The SARS and MERS studies agreed with the studies on COVID‐19. Two SARS modelling studies assessed costs. They found that the costs may be lower when quarantine measures start earlier. Reliability of the evidence We are uncertain about the evidence we found for several reasons. The observational studies on COVID‐19 did not include a comparison group without quarantine. The COVID‐19 studies based their models on limited data and made different assumptions about the virus (e.g. how quickly it would spread). The other studies investigated SARS and MERS so they only provide indirect evidence. Conclusion Despite limited evidence, all the studies found quarantine to be important in reducing the number of people infected and the number of deaths. Results suggest that quarantine was most effective, and cost less, when it started earlier. Combining quarantine with other prevention and control measures may have a greater effect than quarantine alone. This review includes evidence published up to 23 June 2020.

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7–97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8–64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1–99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2–73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0–94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2–79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8–98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges.

Background Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies. Methods We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. Results For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). Conclusions Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

Objectives The objective of this study was to assess the agreement of treatment effect estimates from meta-analyses based on abbreviated or comprehensive literature searches. Study Design and Setting This was a meta-epidemiological study. We abbreviated 47 comprehensive Cochrane review searches and searched MEDLINE/Embase/CENTRAL alone, in combination, with/without checking references (658 new searches). We compared one meta-analysis from each review with recalculated ones based on abbreviated searches. Results The 47 original meta-analyses included 444 trials (median 6 per review [interquartile range (IQR) 3–11]) with 360045 participants (median 1,371 per review [IQR 685–8,041]). Depending on the search approach, abbreviated searches led to identical effect estimates in 34–79% of meta-analyses, to different effect estimates with the same direction and level of statistical significance in 15–51%, and to opposite effects (or effects could not be estimated anymore) in 6–13%. The deviation of effect sizes was zero in 50% of the meta-analyses and in 75% not larger than 1.07-fold. Effect estimates of abbreviated searches were not consistently smaller or larger (median ratio of odds ratio 1 [IQR 1–1.01]) but more imprecise (1.02–1.06-fold larger standard errors). Conclusion Abbreviated literature searches often led to identical or very similar effect estimates as comprehensive searches with slightly increased confidence intervals. Relevant deviations may occur.

Background Hip fractures are a major public health problem in elderly populations and are accompanied by high-mortality rates. Whether timing of surgery has an impact on morbidity and mortality has been discussed controversially, numerous studies suggest that the delay of surgery can significantly increase the risk of morbidity and mortality; others report that achieving a stable medical condition is more important than early surgery. The goal of our systematic review is to assess the impact of timing of surgery on health outcomes in patients aged 60 years or older with acute hip fracture. In addition, we will investigate differences in beneficial or harmful effects of timing of surgery in subgroups of patients based on demographic characteristics, physical status, and the use of anticoagulant medications. Methods We will systematically search MEDLINE via Ovid, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and clinical trial registries (from 1997 to 2017). In addition, we will search reference lists of pertinent reviews, archives of annual meetings of orthopaedic societies, and contact experts. We will include randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies assessing the impact of timing of surgery after hip fracture in patients 60 years or older, published in English or German. Our outcomes of interest include health outcomes such as mortality, perioperative complications, functional capacity, and quality of life. We plan to perform meta-analyses if we have at least three sufficiently similar studies. If data are sufficient, we will conduct subgroup-analyses testing for differences between age groups, sex, patients’ physical status as assessed with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) scores, and the use of anticoagulation. Discussion Since this is the first systematic review on this topic since 2010, our findings will help to inform clinical practice guidelines concerning timing of surgery in hip fractures. Furthermore, our findings could contribute to define an optimal time period for surgery for different groups of patients with acute hip fracture. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017058216 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0559-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Wir alle treffen standig Entscheidungen, die mit unserer Gesundheit zu tun haben. Cochrane Osterreich hilft dabei, verlassliche Informationen fur solche Entscheidungen in deutscher Sprache zu liefern.

Background: Decisionmakers and guideline developers demand rapid syntheses of the evidence when time sensitive evidence-informed decisions are required. A potential trade-off of such rapid reviews is that their results can have less reliability than results of systematic reviews that can lead to an increased risk of making incorrect decisions or recommendations. We sought to determine how much incremental uncertainty about the correctness of an answer guideline developers and health policy decisionmakers are willing to accept in exchange for a rapid evidence-synthesis. Methods: Employing a purposive sample, we conducted an international web-based, anonymous survey of decisionmakers and guideline developers. Based on a clinical treatment, a public health, and a clinical prevention scenario, participants indicated the maximum risk of getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review that they would be willing to accept. We carefully reviewed data and performed descriptive statistical analyses. Results: In total, 325 (58.5%) of 556 participants completed our survey and were eligible for analysis. The median acceptable incremental risk for getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review across all three scenarios was 10.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-15.0). Acceptable risks were similar for the clinical treatment (n = 313, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and the public health scenarios (n = 320, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and lower for the clinical prevention scenario (n = 312, median 6.5% [IQR 5.0-10.5]). Conclusions: Findings suggest that decisionmakers are willing to accept some trade-off in validity in exchange for a rapid review. Nevertheless, they expect the validity of rapid reviews to come close to that of systematic reviews. Fil: Wagner, Gernot. Danube University Krems; Alemania Fil: Nussbaumer Streit, Barbara. Danube University Krems; Alemania Fil: Greimel, Judith. Universidad de Hohenheim; Alemania Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Gartlehner, Gerald. Danube University Krems; Alemania

Background Most European and North American clinical practice guidelines recommend screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) as a routine pregnancy test. Antibiotic treatment of ASB in pregnant women is supposed to reduce maternal upper urinary tract infections (upper UTIs) and preterm labour. However, most studies supporting the treatment of ASB were conducted in the 1950s to 1980s. Because of subsequent changes in treatment options for ASB and UTI, the applicability of findings from these studies has come into question. Our systematic review had three objectives: firstly, to assess the patient-relevant benefits and harms of screening for ASB versus no screening; secondly, to compare the benefits and harms of different screening strategies; and thirdly, in case no reliable evidence on the overarching screening question was identified, to determine the benefits and harms of treatment of ASB. Methods We systematically searched several bibliographic databases, trial registries, and other sources (up to 02/2016) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised trials. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and assessed the risk of bias of the studies included. As meta-analyses were not possible, we summarised the results qualitatively. Results We did not identify any eligible studies that investigated the benefits and harms of screening for ASB versus no screening or that compared different screening strategies. We identified four RCTs comparing antibiotics with no treatment or placebo in 454 pregnant women with ASB. The results of 2 studies published in the 1960s showed a statistically significant reduction in rates of pyelonephritis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.21, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.07–0.59) and lower UTI (OR = 0.10, 95 % CI 0.03–0.35) in women treated with antibiotics. By contrast, event rates reported by a recent study were not statistically significantly different, neither regarding pyelonephritis (0 % vs. 2.2 %; OR = 0.37, CI 0.01–9.25, p = 0.515) nor regarding lower UTI during pregnancy (10 % vs. 18 %; Peto odds ratio [POR] = 0.53, CI 0.16–1.79, p = 0.357). Data were insufficient to determine the risk of harms. As three of the four studies were conducted several decades ago and have serious methodological shortcomings, the applicability of their findings to current health care settings is likely to be low. The recent high-quality RCT was stopped early due to a very low number of primary outcome events, a composite of preterm delivery and pyelonephritis. Therefore, the results did not show a benefit of treating ASB. Conclusions To date, no reliable evidence supports routine screening for ASB in pregnant women. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1128-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.