Search

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production., Objective: To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process., Methods: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively., Results: We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated., Conclusion: For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Due to the growing need to provide evidence syntheses under time constraints, researchers have begun focusing on the exploration of rapid review methods, which often employ single-reviewer literature screening. However, single-reviewer screening misses, on average, 13% of relevant studies, compared to 3% with dual-reviewer screening. Little guidance exists regarding methods to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Likewise, it is unclear whether specific study characteristics can predict an increased risk of false exclusion. This systematic review aimed to identify supplementary search methods that can be used to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Moreover, it strove to identify study-level predictors that indicate an elevated risk of false exclusions of studies during literature screening., Methods: We performed literature searches for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents Connect, Embase, Epistemonikos.org, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts from 1999 to June 23, 2020. We searched for gray literature, checked reference lists, and conducted hand searches in two relevant journals and similar article searches current to January 28, 2021. Two investigators independently screened the literature; one investigator performed the data extraction, and a second investigator checked for correctness and completeness. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies. We synthesized the results narratively., Results: Three method studies, two with a case-study design and one with a case-series design, met the inclusion criteria. One study reported that all falsely excluded publications (8%) could be recovered through reference list checking compared to other supplementary search methods. No included methods study analyzed the impact of recovered studies on conclusions or meta-analyses. Two studies reported that up to 8% of studies were falsely excluded due to uninformative titles and abstracts, and one study showed that 11% of non-English studies were falsely excluded., Conclusions: Due to the limited evidence based on two case studies and one case series, we can draw no firm conclusion about the most reliable and most valid method to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening or about the characteristics that might predict a higher risk of false exclusion., Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/v2pjr/., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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.

Background: Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody for patients with HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-positive breast cancer, which is added to regular treatment and reduces mortality. Originally, trastuzumab had to be administered intravenously (IV) over 30 min every 3 weeks for 1 year. Since 2012, a formulation for the subcutaneous (SC) administration of trastuzumab has been available, which has not yet been approved in the USA. Advocates claim that the SC formulation saves time and money, despite higher costs. The purpose of this study is to review existing literature concerning the comparative efficacy and risk of harms of trastuzumab IV and SC concerning patient-relevant health outcomes., Methods: We conducted searches in the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE for articles published through May 2018 in English or German. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished studies. We dually reviewed the abstracts and full-text articles based on a priori defined inclusion criteria, rated the risk of bias of included studies, and assessed the strength of the evidence for each outcome of interest. Because data was insufficient for quantitative synthesis, we summarized results narratively., Results: We identified three RCTs (randomized controlled trials) meeting our eligibility criteria, which included data on 1003 patients. We found moderate evidence for similar event rates (20.05% vs. 18%, HR (hazard ratio) 0.88, CI 95% = 0.62-1.27), and mortality rates (10% vs. 8%, HR 0.76, CI 95% = 0.44-1.32) after 1.7 years for patients receiving trastuzumab IV and for patients receiving SC. Results remained similar after 3.3 years, though evidence lacked strength due to a high dropout rate. All trials reported more adverse events among the SC group than in the IV group. Evidence for these findings was of moderate strength. Nevertheless, more than 85% of the patients preferred trastuzumab SC over IV. Results concerning serious adverse events appeared to be heterogeneous., Conclusion: Results of studies indicate similar efficacy between the two routes of administration. The higher rates of adverse events for SC administration were mainly attributable to injection site-related events. The clinical decision of whether to administer trastuzumab SC or IV requires the consideration of several factors and should be determined individually.

Background: Web applications that employ natural language processing technologies to support systematic reviewers during abstract screening have become more common. The goal of our project was to conduct a case study to explore a screening approach that temporarily replaces a human screener with a semi-automated screening tool., Methods: We evaluated the accuracy of the approach using DistillerAI as a semi-automated screening tool. A published comparative effectiveness review served as the reference standard. Five teams of professional systematic reviewers screened the same 2472 abstracts in parallel. Each team trained DistillerAI with 300 randomly selected abstracts that the team screened dually. For all remaining abstracts, DistillerAI replaced one human screener and provided predictions about the relevance of records. A single reviewer also screened all remaining abstracts. A second human screener resolved conflicts between the single reviewer and DistillerAI. We compared the decisions of the machine-assisted approach, single-reviewer screening, and screening with DistillerAI alone against the reference standard., Results: The combined sensitivity of the machine-assisted screening approach across the five screening teams was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66 to 90%), and the combined specificity was 95% (95% CI, 92 to 97%). By comparison, the sensitivity of single-reviewer screening was similar (78%; 95% CI, 66 to 89%); however, the sensitivity of DistillerAI alone was substantially worse (14%; 95% CI, 0 to 31%) than that of the machine-assisted screening approach. Specificities for single-reviewer screening and DistillerAI were 94% (95% CI, 91 to 97%) and 98% (95% CI, 97 to 100%), respectively. Machine-assisted screening and single-reviewer screening had similar areas under the curve (0.87 and 0.86, respectively); by contrast, the area under the curve for DistillerAI alone was just slightly better than chance (0.56). The interrater agreement between human screeners and DistillerAI with a prevalence-adjusted kappa was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.86%)., Conclusions: The accuracy of DistillerAI is not yet adequate to replace a human screener temporarily during abstract screening for systematic reviews. Rapid reviews, which do not require detecting the totality of the relevant evidence, may find semi-automation tools to have greater utility than traditional systematic reviews.

Background: Periodontal diseases are responsible for a vast burden of disease globally and are associated with other severe illnesses such as cardiovascular diseases or diabetes. Tests for early diagnosis of periodontal diseases and effective treatments are available. The effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases to detect periodontal diseases at an early stage during periodic health examinations at primary care facilities, however, is unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the benefits and risks of screening for periodontal diseases in adults during the periodic health examinations., Methods: We will use two methodological approaches: (1) a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations and (2) an overview of systematic reviews to determine the effectiveness of treatment approaches for early periodontal disease. We will search electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com , the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, PubMed (non-MEDLINE content)) for published studies as well as sources for grey literature to detect unpublished studies. Two authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts using pre-defined eligibility criteria, select studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of included studies or reviews. In general, we will conduct a systematic narrative synthesis. Criteria for conducting meta-analyses were defined a priori. Our primary outcomes of interest are tooth loss, loosening of teeth, and depletion of bone tissue. Secondary outcomes are gingivitis/gum inflammation, pocket depths, dental hygiene, lifestyle modifications (e.g., smoking, alcohol, nutrition), and toothache. We consulted a panel of experts and patient representatives to prioritize these outcomes. Two investigators will assess independently the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach., Discussion: We anticipate that our review will highlight the gaps in the available evidence about the effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations. Implications for screening programs may be based on linked evidence about the validity of available screening tools and the effectiveness of early treatment., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42017081150.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) is an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or at increased perioperative risk. Due to continually emerging evidence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing benefits and harms of TAVI, SAVR, medical therapy, and balloon aortic valvuloplasty., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 6, 2017. We dually screened abstracts and full-text articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched observational studies. Two investigators independently rated the risk of bias of included studies and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). If data permitted, we performed meta-analyses using random- and fixed-effects models., Results: Out of 7755 citations, we included six RCTs (5862 patients) and 13 observational studies (6376 patients). In meta-analyses, patients treated with SAVR or TAVI had similar risks for mortality at 30 days (relative risk [RR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.33) and 1 year (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). TAVI had significantly lower risks for major bleeding but increased risks for major vascular complications, moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation, and new pacemaker implantation compared to SAVR. Comparing TAVI to medical therapy, mortality did not differ at 30 days but was significantly reduced at 1 year (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77)., Conclusions: Given similar mortality risks but different patterns of adverse events, the choice between TAVI and SAVR remains an individual one.

Background: Over the past years, implementation science has gained more and more importance in German-speaking countries. Reliable and valid questionnaires are needed for evaluating the implementation of evidence-based practices. On an international level, several initiatives focused on the identification of questionnaires used in English-speaking countries but limited their search processes to mental health and public health settings. Our aim was to identify questionnaires used in German-speaking countries measuring the implementation of interventions in public health and health care settings in general and to assess their psychometric properties., Methods: We searched five different bibliographic databases (from 1985 to August 2017) and used several other search strategies (e.g., reference lists, forward citation) to obtain our data. We assessed the instruments, which were identified in an independent dual review process, using 12 psychometric rating criteria. Finally, we mapped the instruments' scales and subscales in regard to the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF)., Results: We identified 31 unique instruments available for the assessment of implementation science constructs. Hospitals and other health care settings were the ones most often investigated (23 instruments), while education and childcare settings, workplace settings, and community settings lacked published instruments. Internal consistency, face and content validity, usability, and structural validity were the aspects most often described. However, most studies did not report on test-retest reliability, known-groups validity, predictive criterion validity, or responsiveness. Overall, the majority of studies did not reveal high-quality instruments, especially regarding the psychometric criteria internal consistency, structural validity, and criterion validity. In addition, we seldom detected instruments operationalizing the CFIR domains intervention characteristics, outer setting, and process, and the IOF constructs adoption, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability., Conclusions: Overall, a sustained and continuous effort is needed to improve the reliability and validity of existing instruments to new ones. Instruments applicable to the assessment of implementation constructs in public health and community settings are urgently needed., Trial Registration: The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19, 2017, under the following number: CRD42017075208 .

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonally recurrent type of major depression that has detrimental effects on patients' lives during winter. Little is known about how it affects patients during summer and about patients' and physicians' perspectives on preventive SAD treatment. The aim of our study was to explore how SAD patients experience summers, what type of preventive treatment patients implement, which preventive treatment methods, if any, physicians recommend, and what factors facilitate or hinder implementation/recommendation of SAD prevention., Methods: We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews, ten with adult patients with a history of SAD and five with physicians. Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using an inductive thematic analysis approach., Results: One group of patients was able to enjoy summer and ignore thoughts of the upcoming winter. The other group feared the impending depressive episode in winter, and this fear negatively impacted these patients' well-being during the summer. Preventive treatment was a relevant issue for all patients, and all but one person implemented SAD prevention during summer. We identified six factors that influenced patient use of preventive treatment of SAD. Four factors occur on an individual level (knowledge about disease and preventive treatment options, experience with treatment in acute phase, acceptability of intervention, willingness to take responsibility for oneself), one on an interpersonal level (social and work environment), and one on a structural level (healthcare system). All psychiatrists recommended some kind of preventive intervention, most commonly, lifestyle changes. Four factors influenced psychiatrists in recommending prevention of SAD (patient expectations, disease history and stability, risk/benefit ratio, lack of evidence)., Conclusions: Success in the implementation of SAD prevention does not solely depend on the willingness of the patients, but is also influenced by external factors. Raising awareness of SAD among general practitioners and low-level access to mental-health support could help patients find appropriate help sooner. To better guide the optimal treatment choice, comparative effectiveness research on treatments to prevent a new onset in patients with a history of SAD and clinical practice guidelines on SAD are needed.

Background: The engagement of citizens in the development of evidence-based screening programs is internationally supported. The aim of our research was to explore the motivations and reasons of adult citizens in Austria for attending periodic health examinations (PHE) as well as their satisfaction with the way PHE are organized., Methods: We conducted three focus groups with a random sample of previous attenders of PHE. Participants were stratified by age, gender, and education. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach., Results: Main motivations of attenders (n = 30) were to detect diseases early, to prevent suffering, and to live a long, healthy life. They believed that PHE work as an incentive of health behavior change. As possible reasons not to attend PHE, participants mentioned lack of awareness, time constraints, unpleasant prior experiences, and fear of harm or negative consequences. They wanted the range of examinations to be selected based on individual risks and to be more comprehensive. Some participants expressed frustration with the lack of time doctors dedicated to the examination or discussion of the results. Throughout the discussion, participants realized there is a great diversity among doctors in the quality of health examinations and how content is delivered., Conclusion: The study showed that attenders of PHE have high expectations concerning the beneficial outcomes of PHE. They requested a comprehensive and individualized program that does not reflect the scientific evidence from effectiveness studies of PHE. These findings indicate serious shortcomings in the communication of benefits and harms of screening interventions and highlight the need for a more proactive communication about aims and content of the program.

Background: Summary of findings tables in systematic reviews are highly informative but require epidemiological training to be interpreted correctly. The usage of fishbone diagrams as graphical displays could offer researchers an effective approach to simplify content for readers with limited epidemiological training. In this paper we demonstrate how fishbone diagrams can be applied to systematic reviews and present the results of an initial user testing., Methods: Findings from two systematic reviews were graphically depicted in the form of the fishbone diagram. To test the utility of fishbone diagrams compared with summary of findings tables, we developed and pilot-tested an online survey using Qualtrics. Respondents were randomized to the fishbone diagram or a summary of findings table presenting the same body of evidence. They answered questions in both open-ended and closed-answer formats; all responses were anonymous. Measures of interest focused on first and second impressions, the ability to find and interpret critical information, as well as user experience with both displays. We asked respondents about the perceived utility of fishbone diagrams compared to summary of findings tables. We analyzed quantitative data by conducting t-tests and comparing descriptive statistics., Results: Based on real world systematic reviews, we provide two different fishbone diagrams to show how they might be used to display complex information in a clear and succinct manner. User testing on 77 students with basic epidemiological training revealed that participants preferred summary of findings tables over fishbone diagrams. Significantly more participants liked the summary of findings table than the fishbone diagram (71.8% vs. 44.8%; p < .01); significantly more participants found the fishbone diagram confusing (63.2% vs. 35.9%, p < .05) or indicated that it was difficult to find information (65.8% vs. 45%; p < .01). However, more than half of the participants in both groups were unable to find critical information and answer three respective questions correctly (52.6% in the fishbone group; 51.3% in the summary of findings group)., Conclusions: Fishbone diagrams are compact visualizations that, theoretically, may prove useful for summarizing the findings of systematic reviews. Initial user testing, however, did not support the utility of such graphical displays.

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.

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.

Background: Because of the enormous social and economic burden of disease, the prevention of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's-type dementia has become a major global public health priority. Studies show that cognitively stimulating activities during middle adulthood might have a protective effect on the brain by boosting the cognitive reserve. The aim of this review is to identify evidence investigating the effects of continuing education for the prevention of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's-type dementia in late life., Methods: Our approach employs a two-stage design: First, we will conduct a systematic review to assess the preventive effects of continuing education on mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's-type dementia. Second, because we expect to find few studies, we will perform a review of systematic reviews on leisure activities that mimic formal continuing education to determine their effects on the prevention of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's-type dementia. We will search electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Scopus) for published studies and gray literature databases (e.g., trial registries) for unpublished studies. Two authors will independently screen abstracts and full-texts using pre-defined eligibility criteria, select studies, extract data, and assess the quality of included studies or reviews. Outcomes of interest include the incidence of mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's-type dementia, quality of life, functional capacity, and psychological wellbeing. Intermediate outcomes are cognitive (test) performance, cognitive functioning, and social inclusion. The review team is a multidisciplinary group consisting of methodological experts and dementia, geriatrics, and continuing education researchers., Discussion: We anticipate that our review will highlight serious gaps in the current evidence. Results will build the basis for further research regarding the relation of continuing education and cognitive decline and dementia., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42017063944.

Background: Sunlight exposure and high vitamin D status have been hypothesised to reduce the risk of developing dementia. The objective of our research was to determine whether lack of sunlight and hypovitaminosis D over time are associated with dementia., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ICONDA, and reference lists of pertinent review articles from 1990 to October 2015. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of published and unpublished data to evaluate the influence of sunlight exposure or vitamin D as a surrogate marker on dementia risk., Results: We could not identify a single study investigating the association between sunlight exposure and dementia risk. Six cohort studies provided data on the effect of serum vitamin D concentration on dementia risk. A meta-analysis of five studies showed a higher risk for persons with serious vitamin D deficiency (<25 nmol/L or 7-28 nmol/L) compared to persons with sufficient vitamin D supply (≥50 nmol/L or 54-159 nmol/L) (point estimate 1.54; 95% CI 1.19-1.99, I 2  = 20%). The strength of evidence that serious vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of developing dementia, however, is very low due to the observational nature of included studies and their lack of adjustment for residual or important confounders (e.g. ApoE ε4 genotype), as well as the indirect relationship between Vitamin D concentrations as a surrogate for sunlight exposure and dementia risk., Conclusions: The results of this systematic review show that low vitamin D levels might contribute to the development of dementia. Further research examining the direct and indirect relationship between sunlight exposure and dementia risk is needed. Such research should involve large-scale cohort studies with homogeneous and repeated assessment of vitamin D concentrations or sunlight exposure and dementia outcomes.

Background: Systematic reviews offer the most reliable and valid support for health policy decision-making, patient information, and guideline development. However, they are labor intensive and frequently take longer than 1 year to complete. Consequently, they often do not meet the needs of those who need to make decisions quickly. Rapid reviews have therefore become a pragmatic alternative to systematic reviews. They are knowledge syntheses that abbreviate certain methodological aspects of systematic reviews to produce information more quickly. Methodological shortcuts often take place in literature identification. A potential drawback is less reliable results. To date, the impact of abbreviated searches on estimates of treatment effects and subsequent conclusions has not been analyzed systematically across multiple bodies of evidence. We aim to answer the research question: Do bodies of evidence that are based on abbreviated literature searches lead to different conclusions about benefits and harms of interventions compared with bodies of evidence that are based on comprehensive, systematic literature searches?, Methods: We will use a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic design. The primary outcome is the proportion of discordant conclusions based on different search approaches. Drawing of a pool of Cochrane reports published between 2012 and 2016, we will randomly select 60 reports. Eligible reports are those that present a summary-of-findings table, draw a clear conclusion, present data for meta-analyses, and document the search strategy clearly. We will conduct several abbreviated searches to detect whether included studies in these Cochrane reviews could be detected. If searches could not detect all studies, we will revise the original summary-of-findings table and ask review authors whether the missed evidence would change conclusions of their report. We will determine the proportion of discordant conclusions for each abbreviated search approach. We will consider an abbreviated search as non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proportion of discordant conclusions is below the non-inferiority margin, which is determined based on results of a survey for clinical and public health scenarios., Discussion: This will be the first study to assess whether the reduced sensitivity of abbreviated searches has an impact on conclusions across multiple bodies of evidence, not only on effect estimates.

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.

Background: Policymakers and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly seeking evidence to inform the policymaking process, and often use existing or commissioned systematic reviews to inform decisions. However, the methodologies that make systematic reviews authoritative take time, typically 1 to 2 years to complete. Outside the traditional SR timeline, "rapid reviews" have emerged as an efficient tool to get evidence to decision-makers more quickly. However, the use of rapid reviews does present challenges. To date, there has been limited published empirical information about this approach to compiling evidence. Thus, it remains a poorly understood and ill-defined set of diverse methodologies with various labels. In recent years, the need to further explore rapid review methods, characteristics, and their use has been recognized by a growing network of healthcare researchers, policymakers, and organizations, several with ties to Cochrane, which is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high-quality, systematic reviews., Purpose: In this commentary, we introduce the newly established Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed to play a leading role in guiding the production of rapid reviews given they are increasingly employed as a research synthesis tool to support timely evidence-informed decision-making. We discuss how the group was formed and outline the group's structure and remit. We also discuss the need to establish a more robust evidence base for rapid reviews in the published literature, and the importance of promoting registration of rapid review protocols in an effort to promote efficiency and transparency in research., Conclusion: As with standard systematic reviews, the core principles of evidence-based synthesis should apply to rapid reviews in order to minimize bias to the extent possible. The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group will serve to establish a network of rapid review stakeholders and provide a forum for discussion and training. By facilitating exchange, the group will strive to conduct research to advance the methods of rapid reviews.

Background: Programmes based on the World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools framework (HPS) have been implemented in several countries but for evidence-based policy-making more research is required to determine the effectiveness of the HPS approach., Methods: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial. The units of randomisation were primary school classes recruited in May 2010. Eligible participants were Year 3 primary school classes in Lower Austria that had not participated in a similar programme during the last two years. After baseline assessment in September 2010, 53 classes from 45 primary schools in Lower Austria were randomly assigned to an intervention (n = 26 classes, 432 children) or waiting control arm (n = 27 classes, 493 children aged 8.7 years +/- 4 months). Over the course of 1.5 academic years, participating teachers received on-the-job training (20 h) and two workshops (8 h) to promote health related behaviour in students such as physical activity during the school day and to improve the quality of regular physical education classes. We assessed 15 outcomes grouped into five categories: Emotional and Social Experience in School, Physical Activity, Well-being, and Attention Performance measured by validated and standardised questionnaire and Motor Skills measured by validated and standardised motoric and coordination tests in the school gym. The primary outcome was Classroom Climate and part of the outcomecategory Emotional and Social Experience in School. The final assessment took place in April 2012. All assessors were blinded to the allocation of classes. Multilevel growth modelling was used to investigate programme effectiveness., Results: We could not detect any statistically significant differences between groups for the outcomecategories Emotional and Social Experience in school (p = 0.22 to 0.78), Physical Activity, Well-being, and Attention Performance. Significant differences between groups were limited to the outcomecategory Motor Skills (Complex Reaction Ability, Spatial Orientation Skills, Coordination with Precision) which were higher in the intervention group (P < .05)., Conclusions: Despite small statistically significant differences in Motor Skills, our study could not detect any clinically relevant improvements in the Emotional and Social Experience at School (including the primary outcome ClassroomClimate), Physical Activity, Well-being, Motor Skills and Attention Performance of students., Trial Registration: German register of clinical studies: DRKS00000622 . Retrospectively registered: 03.12.2010. Approved by the Ethics Committee of Lower Austria (GS4-EK-4/107-2010).

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the largest cause of premature death worldwide. Socioeconomic inequalities contribute to a disparity in the burden of NCDs among disadvantaged and advantaged populations in low (LIC), middle (MIC), and high income countries (HIC). We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to systematically and objectively assess the available evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in relation to morbidity and mortality of NCDs and their risk factors., Methods: We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Global Health, and Business Source Complete for relevant systematic reviews published between 2003 and December 2013. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews., Results: We screened 3302 abstracts, 173 full-text publications and ultimately included 22 systematic reviews. Most reviews had major methodological shortcomings; however, our synthesis showed that having low socioeconomic status (SES) and/or living in low and middle income countries (LMIC) increased the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), lung and gastric cancer, type 2 diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Furthermore, low SES increased the risk of mortality from lung cancer, COPD, and reduced breast cancer survival in HIC. Reviews included here indicated that lower SES is a risk factor for obesity in HIC, but this association varied by SES measure. Early case fatalities of stroke were lower and survival of retinoblastoma was higher in MIC compared to LIC., Conclusions: The current evidence supports an association between socioeconomic inequalities and NCDs and risk factors for NCDs. However, this evidence is incomplete and limited by the fairly low methodological quality of the systematic reviews, including shortcomings in the study selection and quality assessment process.

Background: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias., Methods: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias., Results: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results., Conclusions: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Background: The non-availability of clinical trial results contributes to publication bias, diminishing the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Although clinical trial registries have been established to reduce non-publication, the results from over half of all trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov remain unpublished even 30 months after completion. Our goals were i) to utilize information available in registries (specifically, the number and sample sizes of registered unpublished studies) to gauge the sensitivity of a meta-analysis estimate of the effect size and its confidence interval to the non-publication of studies and ii) to develop user-friendly open-source software to perform this quantitative sensitivity analysis., Methods: The open-source software, the R package SAMURAI, was developed using R functions available in the R package metafor. The utility of SAMURAI is illustrated with two worked examples., Results: Our open-source software SAMURAI, can handle meta-analytic datasets of clinical trials with two independent treatment arms. Both binary and continuous outcomes are supported. For each unpublished study, the dataset requires only the sample sizes of each treatment arm and the user predicted 'outlook' for the studies. The user can specify five outlooks ranging from 'very positive' (i.e., very favorable towards intervention) to 'very negative' (i.e., very favorable towards control).SAMURAI assumes that control arms of unpublished studies have effects similar to the effect across control arms of published studies. For each experimental arm of an unpublished study, utilizing the user-provided outlook, SAMURAI randomly generates an effect estimate using a probability distribution, which may be based on a summary effect across published trials. SAMURAI then calculates the estimated summary treatment effect with a random effects model (DerSimonian & Laird method), and outputs the result as a forest plot., Conclusions: To our knowledge, SAMURAI is currently the only tool that allows systematic reviewers to incorporate information about sample sizes of treatment groups in registered but unpublished clinical trials in their assessment of the potential impact of publication bias on meta-analyses. SAMURAI produces forest plots for visualizing how inclusion of registered unpublished studies might change the results of a meta-analysis. We hope systematic reviewers will find SAMURAI to be a useful addition to their toolkit.

The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was initiated in 2003 in response to dramatic increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals, which lessened the purchasing power of state Medicaid budgets. A collaborative group of state Medicaid agencies and other organizations formed to commission high-quality comparative effectiveness reviews to inform evidence-based decisions about drugs that would be available to Medicaid recipients. The Project is coordinated by the Center for Evidence-based Policy (CEbP) at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), and the systematic reviews are undertaken by the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) at OHSU and at the University of North Carolina. The reviews adhere to high standards for comparative effectiveness reviews. Because the investigators have direct, regular communication with policy-makers, the reports have direct impact on policy and decision-making, unlike many systematic reviews. The Project was an innovator of methods to involve stakeholders and continues to develop its methods in conducting reviews that are highly relevant to policy-makers. The methods used for selecting topics, developing key questions, searching, determining eligibility of studies, assessing study quality, conducting qualitative and quantitative syntheses, rating the strength of evidence, and summarizing findings are described. In addition, our on-going interactions with the policy-makers that use the reports are described.

Background: Bach Flower Remedies are thought to help balance emotional state and are commonly recommended by practitioners for psychological problems and pain. We assessed whether Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs) are safe and efficacious for these indications by performing a systematic review of the literature., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2008 and performed a hand-search of references from relevant key articles. For efficacy, we included all prospective studies with a control group. For safety, we also included retrospective, observational studies with more than 30 subjects. Two authors abstracted data and determined risk of bias using a recognised rating system of trial quality., Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two additional retrospective, observational studies were identified and included in the review. Three RCTs of BFRs for students with examination anxiety, and one RCT of BFRs for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) showed no overall benefit in comparison to placebo. Due to the number and quality of the studies the strength of the evidence is low or very low. We did not find any controlled prospective studies regarding the efficacy of BFRs for pain. Only four of the six studies included for safety explicitly reported adverse events., Conclusion: Most of the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of BFRs has a high risk of bias. We conclude that, based on the reported adverse events in these six trials, BFRs are probably safe. Few controlled prospective trials of BFRs for psychological problems and pain exist. Our analysis of the four controlled trials of BFRs for examination anxiety and ADHD indicates that there is no evidence of benefit compared with a placebo intervention.