Search

The objective of the planned scoping review is to provide an overview on the existing literature on immune response and long-term efficacy outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes. We will limit inclusion to literature on the four vaccines currently authorized by the EMA and vaccines authorized in at least 10 countries worldwide: • Comirnaty [Pfizer / Biontech], • Spikevax [Moderna], and its equivalent TAK-919 [Moderna formulation, Takeda] • Vaxzevria [Oxford / AstraZeneca] and its equivalent Covishield [Oxford / AstraZeneca formulation, Serum Institute of India] • COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen [Ad26.COV2.S] • Sputnik V [Gamaleya] • Sputnik Light [Gamaleya] • BBIBP-CorV (Vero Cells) [Sinopharm (Beijing)] • CoronaVac [Sinovac] (COVID-19 Vaccine (Vero Cell) Inactivated)

The objective of the planned scoping review is to provide an overview on the existing literature on immune response and long-term efficacy outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes. We will limit inclusion to literature on the four vaccines currently authorized by the EMA and vaccines authorized in at least 10 countries worldwide: • Comirnaty [Pfizer / Biontech], • Spikevax [Moderna], and its equivalent TAK-919 [Moderna formulation, Takeda] • Vaxzevria [Oxford / AstraZeneca] and its equivalent Covishield [Oxford / AstraZeneca formulation, Serum Institute of India] • COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen [Ad26.COV2.S] • Sputnik V [Gamaleya] • Sputnik Light [Gamaleya] • BBIBP-CorV (Vero Cells) [Sinopharm (Beijing)] • CoronaVac [Sinovac] (COVID-19 Vaccine (Vero Cell) Inactivated)

Protocol for a scoping review to scope the existing research landscape on interventions to enhance the willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or to decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and map the evidence according to targeted populations and intervention categories.

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Bewegungsangebote für Menschen mit Parkinson, wie z.B. Gangtraining, Krafttraining, Physiotherapie oder Tanzen, können einen positiven Einfluss auf die motorischen Fähigkeiten sowie die Lebensqualität haben und gelten als gut verträglich. Inwieweit [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL]

Systematic Review

Background: Measurements and comparisons of event times in clinical research are based on time-to-event analyses, or survival analyses as they are more generally referred to. For example, in oncology and cardiology where overall mortality, that is evaluating the occurrence of the event ‘death’ irrespective of its cause, is one of the most explored time-to-event outcomes. Various statistical methods to analyze time-to-event outcomes are available, including the non-parametric method proposed by Kaplan and Meier or the semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards model, which allows the calculation of the widely used hazard ratio for between group comparisons. Methods of time-to-event analysis are associated with methodological peculiarities and their results are not always easy to interpret. Challenges include the potential for informative censoring, possible competing events and situations where the underlying assumption of proportional hazards of the Cox model does not hold. For time-to-event meta-analyses based on aggregated data, which are increasingly used in systematic reviews and guidelines, existing instructions for authors are primarily focused on the recovery of data in order to pool effect estimators and leave the confidence in the included estimators largely untouched. Due to the difficulties and requirements of time-to-event analyses, the lack of guidance carries a high risk of limited review quality if existing uncertainties in primary studies are not adequately identified, considered and reported. Aim: To determine how systematic review authors deal with the specifics of time-to-event analyses in meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes. Proposed methods: Using a meta-epidemiological study approach and two-stage assessment, we will extract information on the handling of time-to-event outcomes from systematic reviews and the respective trials included in them. We will identify 50 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane systematic reviews published during the same time-period on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Medline. Eligible reviews will be required to include at least one time-to-event meta-analysis of aggregated data over at least two randomized controlled trials. All project steps, including the screening and selection of relevant reviews and trials as well as the extraction of data, will be performed in duplicate. Data will be extracted for each systematic review, meta-analyzed time-to-event review outcome, trial and analyzed trial outcome and will include general (e.g. publication information, PICO questions, sample sizes, general methods, risk of bias and GRADE assessments, etc.) and time-to-event (meta-)analytic information (e.g. outcome definitions, effect measures, follow-up durations, censoring (for non-administrative reasons) and competing events as well as their consideration in reviews (e.g. through sensitivity analyses, risk of bias ratings or discussion)). We will also extract effect estimators both of meta-analyses and trials and will recalculate meta-analyses, should discrepancies be identified in the selection or generation of effect measures from primary trials, in order to perform error analyses. We will use a flexible database to manage and analyze our generated data over multiple levels. Given the exploratory nature of this project, the planned statistical analyses are primarily descriptive and we will use relative effect measures and corresponding confidence intervals for between group comparisons. To allow adequate interpretability and comparisons across and within subgroups of reviews, we plan to analyse our findings respecting relevant clusters (e.g. Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane systematic reviews, different medical fields, different intervention types, different types of outcomes (single event versus composite, primary versus non-primary, competing events possible versus no-competing events possible)).

The aim of this systematic review is to synthetize evidence for the immune response to additional doses of SARS-CoV-2- vaccines after full immunization and vaccine efficacy. Adverse events, especially concerning de-novo-formation of donor-specific antibodies and acute graft rejections will also be reported. We will include analyses of the vaccines appproved for emergency use by the EMA and also by the WHO. In addition, we will include Sputnik V (Gamaleya Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine) despite pending approval by EMA or WHO because of its wide distribution in 74 countries as of February 14th. - Cominarty (BioNTech and Pfizer), also Tozinameran, BNT162b2 - Nuvaxovid (Novavax), also NVX-CoV2373 and their formulations - Spikevax (Moderna), also mRNA-1273 - Vaxzevria (Oxford/AstraZeneca), also AZD1222, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and their formulations - COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), also Ad26COVS1, JNJ-78436735 - Sinovac, also Coronavac - Covilo (Sinopharm (Beijing)), also BBIBP-CorV (Vero Cells) - Covaxin (Bharat Biotech), also BBV152 We aim to compare heterologous vs. homologous vaccination schemes, mRNA vs. adenoviral vector vaccines and other mechanisms. We will also compare immune responses to the mRNA vaccines from BioNtech and Moderna.

Supplementary material 'Piechotta et al. Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD012775.pub2'

Participants of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) sometimes receive the intervention (e.g., a drug or drug combination, surgical procedure, behavioral program, screening intervention etc.) initially allocated to a respective comparator arm (i.e., participants in the intervention group receive the control group’s intervention and vice versa). Reasons for the reception of a comparator intervention are manifold; they include patient-related, practical and/or ethical issues. However, such changes may affect the interpretation of the comparisons and the translation of study results into clinical practice (e.g., through clinical guidelines). The aim of the current methodological review is to i) explore and assess the frequency of trial participants in the control arm receiving the intervention planned for intervention arm and vice versa in recent RCTs and the modalities of this practice (e.g., reasons, decision criteria, pre-specification and awareness to allocation of participants and personnel); and ii) to identify similarities and differences in trials across intervention types and clinical fields.

Vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to population health. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake compared to no intervention (with or without placebo interventions), other communication strategies, or other intervention categories to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The evidence from this systematic review can inform effective communication strategies by governments or private institutions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: Based on this single protocol, we will conduct five separate reviews, each on one of the following types of exercise. Aerobic exercise. Anaerobic exercise. Combined (aerobic and anaerobic) exercise. Aerobic versus anaerobic exercise. Yoga. The primary aims of these reviews are to: evaluate the effects of aerobic exercise on CRF in people with cancer; evaluate the effects of anaerobic exercise on CRF in people with cancer; evaluate the effects of aerobic and anaerobic (combined) exercise on CRF in people with cancer; compare the effects of aerobic exercise versus anaerobic exercise on CRF in people with cancer; evaluate the effects of yoga on CRF in people with cancer. Furthermore, our aims for each of these reviews are to evaluate the effects at: different periods of treatment in relation to cancer treatment (before, during, or after treatment); different periods of assessment (up to 12 weeks follow‐up, more than 12 weeks to less than 6 months follow‐up, or 6 months or longer follow‐up). Moreover, we will analyse the effects of exercise on HRQoL, adverse events, depression, and anxiety.