Search

Background: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) galactomannan is an adjunctive test for central nervous system (CNS) aspergillosis diagnosis with unclear diagnostic test characteristics., Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic test characteristics of CSF galactomannan in CNS aspergillosis., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, from inception to 24 February 2023., Study Eligibility Criteria: Prospective and retrospective studies with 1-group and 2-group designs using any galactomannan assay on CSF to diagnose CNS aspergillosis., Participants: Adult and/or paediatric patients with CNS aspergillosis., Test(s): Galactomannan testing on CSF specimens., Reference Standard: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium (EORTC/MSGERC) diagnostic criteria, or equivalent., Assessment of Risk of Bias: QUADAS-2 assessment in duplicate., Methods of Data Synthesis: Bivariate restricted maximum likelihood estimation random-effects meta-analysis, summarized using forest and summary receiver operating characteristic plots; bivariate meta-regression models to investigate heterogeneity; and subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore subgroup effects and methodologic choices (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022296331; funding: none)., Results: We included eight studies (n = 342 participants). The summary estimates of CSF galactomannan sensitivity and specificity were 69.0% (95% CI, 57.2-78.7%) and 94.4% (95% CI, 82.8-98.3%), respectively. Using meta-regression, galactomannan cut-off (p = 0.38), EORTC/MSGERC criteria version (p = 0.48), or whether the reference standard was defined as both proven and probable or only proven aspergillosis (p = 0.48) did not explain observed heterogeneity. No subgroup effects were demonstrated by analysing the EORTC/MSGERC criteria reference standard used (e.g. 2002 vs. 2008 definitions) or whether paediatric patients were included. Diagnostic sensitivity was improved using a galactomannan cut-off of 1.0, and by excluding high risk of bias and 1-group design studies., Discussion: CSF galactomannan is a highly specific but insensitive test for use as a component of CNS aspergillosis diagnosis. Few included studies, no prospective studies, and a high risk of bias are study limitations., (Copyright © 2024 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment., (Copyright © 2024 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Combining multivariate and network meta-analysis methods simultaneously in a multivariate network meta-analysis (MVNMA) provides the methodological framework to analyze the largest amount of evidence relevant to decision-makers (i.e. from indirect evidence and correlated outcomes). The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize the characteristics of MVNMAs published in the health sciences literature, and map the methodological guidance available for MVNMA., Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to 28 August 2023, along with citations of included studies, for quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and articles addressing MVNMA methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies. Collected data included bibliographic, methodological and analytical characteristics of included studies. We reported results as total numbers, frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables that were not normally distributed., Results: After screening 1,075 titles and abstracts, and 112 full texts, we included 38 unique studies; of which, 10 were quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and 28 were articles addressing MVNMA methods. Among the 10 MVNMAs, the first was published in 2013, four used studies identified from already published systematic reviews and eight addressed pharmacological interventions, which were the most common interventions. They evaluated interventions for metastatic melanoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, oral hygiene, disruptive behaviour disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, narcolepsy, type 2 diabetes and overactive bladder syndrome. Five MVNMAs analyzed two outcomes simultaneously and four MVNMAs analyzed three outcomes simultaneously. Among the articles addressing MVNMA methods, the first was published in 2007 and the majority provided methodological frameworks for conducting MVNMAs (26/28, 93%). One study proposed criteria to standardize reporting of MVNMAs and two proposed items relevant to the quality assessment of MVNMAs. Study authors used data from 19 different illnesses to provide illustrative examples within their methodological guidance., Conclusions: The application of MVNMA in the health sciences literature is uncommon. Many methodological frameworks are published; however, standardization, and specific criteria to guide reporting and quality assessment are lacking. This overview of the current landscape may help inform future conduct of MVNMAs and research on MVNMA methods., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations., Methods: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria., Results: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94)., Conclusion: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Several authors (L.R., M.L., G.H.) were involved in the development of guidelines that were included in the study. However, they did not participate in the evaluation of health equity considerations in the study. Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the Pan American Health Organization, Canadian Rheumatology Association. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antibiotic use drives antibiotic resistance., Objectives: To systematically review the literature and estimate associations between prior exposure to antibiotics across World Health Organization's (WHO) AWaRe categories (Access, Watch, Reserve) and isolation of critical and high-priority multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) on the WHO priority pathogen list., Data Sources: Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov (from inception to 20/08/2020)., Study Eligibility Criteria: Case-control, cohort, or experimental studies that assessed the risk of infection/colonization with MDROs., Participants: Inpatients or outpatients of any age and sex., Interventions: Prior exposure to antibiotics that could be categorized into the AWaRe framework., Data Analysis: Tailored design-specific checklists applied to each included study. For each antibiotic/class, crude odds ratios (ORs) were pooled through random-effects meta-analyses, both overall and by MDRO. Heterogeneity was examined., Results: We identified 349 eligible studies. All were observational, prone to bias due to design and lack of adjustment for confounding, and not primarily designed to compare associations across AWaRe categories. We found statistically significant associations between prior exposure to almost all antibiotics/classes across AWaRe categories and colonization/infection with any MDRO. We observed higher ORs for Watch and Reserve antibiotics than with Access antibiotics. First generation cephalosporins (Access) had the least association with any MDRO colonization/infection (58 studies; OR = 1.2 [95% CI: 1.0-1.4]), whereas strongest associations were estimated for linezolid (Reserve) (22 studies; OR = 2.6 [95% CI: 2.1-3.1]), followed by carbapenems (Watch) (237 studies; OR = 2.3 [95% CI: 2.1-2.5]). There was high heterogeneity for all antibiotic/MDRO associations., Conclusions: Optimising use of Access antibiotics is likely to reduce the selection of MDROs and global antibiotic resistance. Despite data limitations, our study offers a strong rationale for further adoption of AWaRe as an important tool to improve antibiotic use globally., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Availability of randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols is essential for the interpretation of trial results and research transparency., Study Design and Setting: In this study, we determined the availability of RCT protocols approved in Switzerland, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom in 2012. For these RCTs, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and trial registries for publicly available protocols and corresponding full-text publications of results. We determined the proportion of RCTs with (1) publicly available protocols, (2) publications citing the protocol, and (3) registries providing a link to the protocol. A multivariable logistic regression model explored factors associated with protocol availability., Results: Three hundred twenty-six RCTs were included, of which 118 (36.2%) made their protocol publicly available; 56 (47.6% 56 of 118) provided as a peer-reviewed publication and 48 (40.7%, 48 of 118) provided as supplementary material. A total of 90.9% (100 of 110) of the protocols were cited in the main publication, and 55.9% (66 of 118) were linked in the clinical trial registry. Larger sample size (>500; odds ratio [OR] = 5.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.75-13.31) and investigator sponsorship (OR = 1.99, 95% CI, 1.11-3.59) were associated with increased protocol availability. Most protocols were made available shortly before the publication of the main results., Conclusion: RCT protocols should be made available at an early stage of the trial., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform., Study Design and Setting: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence., Results: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence., Conclusion: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Detailed reporting is essential in non-inferiority randomized controlled trials (NI-RCTs) to assess evidence quality, as these trials inform standards of care., Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of antifungal NI-RCTs., Data Sources: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane CENTRAL and the United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) drugs database were searched to 9 September 2020., Study Eligibility Criteria: NI-RCTs differing by antifungal formulation, type, dose, administration and/or duration were included. Articles were independently assessed in duplicate using quality indicators developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group., Participants: Patients enrolled in antifungal trials for prophylactic and therapeutic use., Methods: The Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess risk of bias. Descriptive statistics were used; all statistical tests were two sided., Results: Of 32 included studies, 22 (68.7%) did not justify the NIM. Handling of missing data was not described in 20 (62.5%). Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were both reported in 12/32 (37.5%) studies. Eleven of 32 studies (34.3%) reported potentially misleading conclusions. Industry-financed studies were more likely to report only the ITT analysis (n = 14/27, 51.9%). Methodological and reporting quality was unaffected by publication year; risk of bias from missing data changed over time. Overall risk of bias across included studies was moderate to high, with high risk in randomization process (n = 8/32, 25%), missing outcome data (n = 5/32, 15.6%), and selection of reported result (n = 9/32, 28.1%)., Conclusions: Justification of the non-inferiority margin, reporting of ITT and PP analyses, missing data handling description, and ensuring conclusions are consistent with reported data is necessary to improve CONSORT adherence. Small sample size and overall risk of bias are study limitations. (Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42020219497)., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate the adherence of randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions (including dietary interventions, surgical procedures, behavioural and lifestyle interventions, and exercise programmes) in comparison with regulated interventions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement., Methods: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional investigation in a random sample of RCT protocols approved in 2012 (n = 257) or 2016 (n = 292) by research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, or Canada. We investigated the proportion of accurately reported SPIRIT checklist items in protocols of trials with non-regulated as compared to regulated interventions., Results: Overall, 131 (24%) of trial protocols tested non-regulated interventions. In 2012, the median proportion of SPIRIT items reported in these protocols (59%, interquartile range [IQR], 53%-69%) was lower than in protocols with regulated interventions (median, 74%, IQR, 66%-80%). In 2016, the reporting quality of protocols with non-regulated interventions (median, 75%, IQR, 62%-83%) improved to the level of regulated intervention protocols, which had not changed on average., Conclusions: Reporting of RCT protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions improved between 2012 and 2016, although remained suboptimal. SPIRIT recommendations need to be further endorsed by researchers, ethics committees, funding agencies, and journals to optimize reporting of RCT protocols., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Having up-to-date health policy recommendations accessible in one location is in high demand by guideline users. We developed an easy to navigate interactive approach to organize recommendations and applied it to tuberculosis (TB) guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO)., Study Design: We used a mixed-methods study design to develop a framework for recommendation mapping with seven key methodological considerations. We define a recommendation map as an online repository of recommendations from several guidelines on a condition, providing links to the underlying evidence and expert judgments that inform them, allowing users to filter and cross-tabulate the search results. We engaged guideline developers, users, and health software engineers in an iterative process to elaborate the WHO eTB recommendation map., Results: Applying the seven-step framework, we included 228 recommendations, linked to 103 guideline questions and organized the recommendation map according to key components of the health question, including the original recommendations and rationale (https://who.tuberculosis.recmap.org/)., Conclusion: The recommendation mapping framework provides the entire continuum of evidence mapping by framing recommendations within a guideline questions' population, interventions, and comparators domains. Recommendation maps should allow guideline developers to organize their work meaningfully, standardize the automated publication of guidelines through links to the GRADEpro guideline development tool, and increase their accessibility and usability., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The objective of the study is to present the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) conceptual approach to the assessment of certainty of evidence from modeling studies (i.e., certainty associated with model outputs)., Study Design and Setting: Expert consultations and an international multidisciplinary workshop informed development of a conceptual approach to assessing the certainty of evidence from models within the context of systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and health care decisions. The discussions also clarified selected concepts and terminology used in the GRADE approach and by the modeling community. Feedback from experts in a broad range of modeling and health care disciplines addressed the content validity of the approach., Results: Workshop participants agreed that the domains determining the certainty of evidence previously identified in the GRADE approach (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, reporting bias, magnitude of an effect, dose-response relation, and the direction of residual confounding) also apply when assessing the certainty of evidence from models. The assessment depends on the nature of model inputs and the model itself and on whether one is evaluating evidence from a single model or multiple models. We propose a framework for selecting the best available evidence from models: 1) developing de novo, a model specific to the situation of interest, 2) identifying an existing model, the outputs of which provide the highest certainty evidence for the situation of interest, either "off-the-shelf" or after adaptation, and 3) using outputs from multiple models. We also present a summary of preferred terminology to facilitate communication among modeling and health care disciplines., Conclusion: This conceptual GRADE approach provides a framework for using evidence from models in health decision-making and the assessment of certainty of evidence from a model or models. The GRADE Working Group and the modeling community are currently developing the detailed methods and related guidance for assessing specific domains determining the certainty of evidence from models across health care-related disciplines (e.g., therapeutic decision-making, toxicology, environmental health, and health economics)., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions. SARS-CoV-2 mortality/morbidity risk increases with age and for those chronic disease co-morbidities, both of which are associated with lower zinc status, as is the risk of infection., Methods: Rapid review methods will be applied to a systematic review of zinc for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and viral respiratory tract infections in humans. Included are published studies reporting randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compare zinc intervention to placebo and/or other comparator interventions. English and Chinese language databases will be searched for primary studies of viral respiratory tract infections and clinical trial registries for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Due to concerns about indirectness, studies evaluating non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infections will be rated down by one level, and non-specific or confirmed non-coronavirus viral infections will be rated down by two levels. Review constraints include (1) using Google translate when screening articles published in languages other than English or Chinese and limited translation (2) following calibration, only one reviewer will screen articles, extract data, appraise quality and conduct the analysis, (3) prioritising data extraction and meta-analyses of SARS-CoV-2 studies and critical outcomes of other viral infections, followed by high risk groups and (4) reporting important preliminary findings prior to peer review if necessary., Discussion: The application of these rapid review methods and broadening the inclusion criteria to include other coronavirus-related viral respiratory tract infections aims to enable a timely evidence appraisal of priority research questions and dissemination of results., Study Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020182044., (© 2020 Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: To compare methodological characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in higher vs. lower impact Core Clinical Journals., Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE for RCTs published in 2007 in Core Clinical Journals. We randomly sampled 1,140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio in higher (five general medicine journals with the highest total citations in 2007) and lower impact journals., Results: Four hundred sixty-nine RCTs proved eligible: 219 in higher and 250 in lower impact journals. RCTs in higher vs. lower impact journals had larger sample sizes (median, 285 vs. 39), were more likely to receive industry funding (53% vs. 28%), declare concealment of allocation (66% vs. 36%), declare blinding of health care providers (53% vs. 41%) and outcome adjudicators (72% vs. 54%), report a patient-important primary outcome (69% vs. 50%), report subgroup analyses (64% vs. 26%), prespecify subgroup hypotheses (42% vs. 20%), and report a test for interaction (54% vs. 27%); P < 0.05 for all differences., Conclusion: RCTs published in higher impact journals were more likely to report methodological safeguards against bias and patient-important outcomes than those published in lower impact journals. However, sufficient limitations remain such that publication in a higher impact journal does not ensure low risk of bias., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)