Search

Utilisation of crowdsourcing within evidence synthesis has increased over the last decade. Crowdsourcing platform Cochrane Crowd has engaged a global community of 22,000 people from 170 countries. The COVID-19 pandemic presented an opportunity to engage the community and keep up with the exponential output of COVID-19 research.To test whether a crowd could accurately assess study eligibility for reviews under time constraints.time taken to complete each task, time to produce required training modules, crowd sensitivity, specificity and crowd consensus.We created four crowd tasks, corresponding to four Cochrane COVID-19 Rapid Reviews. The search results of each were uploaded and an interactive training module was developed for each task. Contributors who had participated in another COVID-19 task were invited to participate. Each task was live for 48-h. The final inclusion and exclusion decisions made by the core author team were used as the reference standard.Across all four reviews 14,299 records were screened by 101 crowd contributors. The crowd completed each screening task within 48-h for three reviews and in 52 h for one. Sensitivity ranged from 94% to 100%. Four studies, out of a total of 109, were incorrectly rejected by the crowd. However, their absence ultimately would not have altered the conclusions of the reviews. Crowd consensus ranged from 71% to 92% across the four reviews.Crowdsourcing can play a valuable role in study identification and offers willing contributors the opportunity to help identify COVID-19 research for rapid evidence syntheses.

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 Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems. Search methods We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life. Data collection and analysis Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I2 statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Main results We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I2 = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison. Authors' conclusions Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted.

Background Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, or psychotherapy. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs, or psychotherapy. Search methods This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2011. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (all years), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2011 to January 2020), together with the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all available years), for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We hand searched the reference lists of all included studies and other systematic reviews. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished/ongoing trials. We ran a separate update search for reports of adverse events in the Ovid databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy we included RCTs of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse events we also included non-randomised studies. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were conducted individually. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar, and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment. Main results In this update we identified no new RCT on the effectiveness of SGAs in SAD patients. We included 2 additional single-arm observational studies that reported on adverse events of SGAs. For efficacy we included three RCTs of between five and eight weeks' duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse events we included two RCTs and five observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks' duration with a total of 249 participants. All participants met the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age ranged from 34 to 42 years, and the majority of participants were female (66% to 100%). Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine (20/36) was numerically superior to placebo (11/32) in achieving clinical response; however, the confidence interval (CI) included both a potential benefit as well as no benefit of fluoxetine (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.83, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials involving a total of 136 participants compared fluoxetine versus light therapy. Meta-analysis showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24, low-certainty evidence), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any eligible study comparing SGA with another SGA or with psychotherapy. Two RCTs and five non-randomised studies reported adverse event data on a total of 249 participants who received bupropion, fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, nefazodone, reboxetine, light therapy, or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse events, therefore caution is advised regarding interpretation of this information. Between 0% and 100% of participants who received an SGA suffered an adverse event, and between 0% and 25% of participants withdrew from the study due to adverse events. Authors' conclusions Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo showing a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy suggesting equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precluded us from drawing any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further, larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs. Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. The data we obtained on adverse events is therefore not robust, and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 25% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the study early due to adverse events.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: To assess the reporting of systematic reviews by reviewing research that used cohorts of reviews to compare the content of the published reports of these reviews with the information stated in: their protocols, or their entries in a registry. To assess whether these differences are related to the characteristics of the systematic reviews, such as source of funding, Cochrane or non‐Cochrane Review, or the statistical significance of results.

BACKGROUND: Lead exposure is a serious health hazard, especially for children. It is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children. There are many potential sources of lead in the environment, therefore trials have tested many household interventions to prevent or reduce lead exposure. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of household interventions intended to prevent or reduce further lead exposure in children on improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2020, we updated our searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched Google Scholar, checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to identify unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (three new to this update), involving 3282 children: 16 RCTs (involving 3204 children) and one quasi‐RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Fifteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, one in Australia and one in China. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in those studies reporting this information. The duration of the intervention ranged from three months to 24 months in 15 studies, while two studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow‐up periods ranged from three months to eight years. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. The other 14 studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; for example, we considered two RCTs and one quasi‐RCT at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs at high risk of attrition bias. National or international research grants or governments funded 15 studies, while the other two did not report their funding sources. Education interventions versus no intervention None of the included studies in this comparison assessed effects on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes, or adverse events. All studies reported data on blood lead level outcomes. Educational interventions showed there was probably no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) –0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.13 to 0.07; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 815 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; log‐transformed data), or in reducing floor dust levels (MD –0.07, 95% CI –0.37 to 0.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 318 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Environmental interventions versus no intervention Dust control: one study in this comparison reported data on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes, and on adverse events in children. The study showed numerically there may be better neurobehavioural outcomes in children of the intervention group. However, differences were small and the CI included both a beneficial and non‐beneficial effect of the environmental intervention (e.g. mental development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development‐II): MD 0.1, 95% CI –2.1 to 2.4; 1 study, 302 participants; low‐certainty evidence). The same study did not observe any adverse events related to the intervention during the eight‐year follow‐up, but observed two children with adverse events in the control group (1 study, 355 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Meta‐analysis also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD –0.02, 95% CI –0.09 to 0.06; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 565 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; log‐transformed data). We could not pool the data regarding floor dust levels, but studies reported that there may be no evidence of a difference between the groups (very low‐certainty evidence). Soil abatement: the two studies assessing this environmental intervention only reported on the outcome of 'blood lead level'. One study showed a small effect on blood lead level reduction, while the other study showed no effect. Therefore, we deem the current evidence insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement (very low‐certainty evidence). Combination of educational and environmental interventions versus standard education Studies in this comparison only reported on blood lead levels and dust lead levels. We could not pool the studies in a meta‐analysis due to substantial differences between the studies. Since the studies reported inconsistent results, the evidence is currently insufficient to clarify whether a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels and floor dust levels (very low‐certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, household educational interventions and environmental interventions (namely dust control measures) show no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. The evidence of the effects of environmental interventions on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes and adverse events is uncertain too. Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for reducing or even preventing further lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low‐ and middle‐income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high‐income countries.