Search

ObjectivesTo chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.DesignScoping review.ParticipantsQuantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support.ResultsLiterature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%).ConclusionsReviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework:https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.A total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.Long-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.

CADTH’s 2023 Watch List presents the top 10 precision medicine technologies and issues that have the potential to make a significant and meaningful impact in transforming health systems in Canada over the next 5 years. These technologies and issues are likely to shape the future of health care. The Human Genome Project was completed 20 years ago and offers new opportunities to use an individual's genetic information to manage their health care. Today, as health systems see an emergence of new precision medicine technologies that can use a person’s unique characteristics to inform and tailor their care, the 2023 Watch List unpacks the hype from hope, and indicates where there is likely real opportunity to improve patient care and health systems delivery. As part of the 2023 Watch List, we identify and describe the 5 top precision medicine technologies; among them, examples such as liquid biopsies for informing cancer treatments and pharmacogenomics testing for mental health conditions that may shape the future of health care. To prepare health systems for their wider adoption and implementation, the 2023 Watch List explores some considerations for health care decision-makers about the impact and implications the technologies may have on care pathways, health human resources, health care infrastructure, and health equity. The 2023 Watch List also identifies the top 5 issues that crosscut the broader scope of precision medicine technologies and could limit health systems from realizing the full potential of the technologies. Among them, issues such as increasing complexity related to interpreting test results and challenges in regulating precision medicine technologies are key issues that likely warrant more attention and will influence the wider adoption, diffusion, and implementation of precision medicine technologies. Collectively, monitoring ongoing developments and evidence related to the top technologies and issues highlighted in the 2023 Watch List can help support health care stakeholders to future-proof health systems and guide health system planning in Canada.

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment.DesignRapid scoping reviewData sourcesMedline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021.SettingHospital and community care.ParticipantsCOVID-19 patients of all ages.InterventionsCOVID-19 treatment.ResultsThe literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively.ConclusionsThis rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

A limited literature search was conducted to identify interventions to improve access to primary health care in Canada. Identified programs included components such as better scheduling, incentives for family doctors to work after-hours or provide more cancer screening, encouraging doctors to see the same patient throughout the course of their care, and involving other types of care providers or aides in accessing care.

For adults with bipolar I disorder, the second-generation antipsychotic injectable drug aripiprazole is less costly and more effective over a patient’s lifetime, compared to the second-generation antipsychotic oral drug cariprazine. For adults with bipolar I disorder, aripiprazole injections are more effective compared to the second-generation antipsychotic oral drug asenapine; the cost-effectiveness over a patient’s lifetime depends on the willingness to pay. These results are based on 1 economic evaluation. No cost-effectiveness studies were found comparing second-generation to first-generation antipsychotic injectable drugs.

Evidence was summarized to determine the effect of alteplase in adult stroke patients. There is substantial uncertainty concerning the evidence due to the risk of bias in the available studies and imprecision in how the magnitude of the treatment effects were estimated. The identified research suggests that alteplase administered within 3 hours of a stroke might result in: fewer deaths after 18 months and little-to-no difference in death after 7 days, 3 months, 6 months, or 3 years increased brain bleeds after 7 days but no difference after 36 hours or after 3 months improvements in functioning and independence after 7 days and after 6 months; at 3 months, some studies showed no difference in independence and another study showed higher functioning. The identified research suggests that alteplase administered between 3 hours and 4.5 hours after a stroke might result in: little-to-no difference in deaths after 3 months; at 7 days, some evidence showed little-to-no difference in death while other evidence suggested more deaths little-to-no differences in brain bleeds after 36 hours; at 7 days, some evidence showed no effect on brain bleeds, while other evidence showed more brain bleeds no differences in functioning and independence after 6 months; at 3 months, some evidence showed no effect on functioning, while other evidence reported improved functioning.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017077051 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06642-7.

Background Recent surveys of Canadian cannabis users reflect increasing consumption rates, some of whom may have diabetes. However, healthcare providers have limited information resources on the effects of recreational cannabis in people with diabetes. This rapid review was commissioned by Diabetes Canada to synthesize available evidence to guide recommendations for care of people 13 years of age and older who live with diabetes. Methods PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched from January 2008 to January 2019. Study selection, data abstraction and quality appraisal were completed by pairs of reviewers working independently and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer with pilot tests completed before each stage to ensure consistency. Data collected from included studies were tabulated and summarized descriptively. Results The search resulted in 1848 citations of which 59 publications were selected for screening, resulting in six observational studies (2 full-text articles and 4 conference abstracts) that met the pre-defined criteria for inclusion. Five studies reported higher glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who consumed recreational cannabis. In one study, students aged 17 to 25 years living with T1D self-reported poorer glycemic control and higher HbA1c when smoking cannabis. In one study of adults with T1D, cannabis use within the previous 12 months was associated with almost double the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis compared with no cannabis use (odds ratio [OR] 1.98; confidence interval [CI] [95% CI] 1.01–3.91). Risks for peripheral arterial occlusion and myocardial infarction were found to be higher in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who consumed recreational cannabis, and worse renal parameters were also reported in two separate studies of T1D and T2D. Conclusions Recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviours in people with T1D. In people with T2D, recreational cannabis may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction and renal disease. However, the evidence base of this rapid review was limited to six observational studies of poor to fair methodological quality, and thus, further robust, higher quality research is required to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019122829

During surgery, wounds can be washed out, or irrigated, using antibiotic, antiseptic, or saline solutions to prevent infections; the evidence in this report found over 20 different antibiotic solutions used across trials. Most studies showed that antibiotic irrigation solutions were better or no different compared to using antiseptic, saline, or no irrigation; however, a small number of studies indicated otherwise. One study reported in a systematic review showed fewer infections and complications for antiseptic compared to a triple antibiotic solution, while another study included in the same systematic review found a higher percentage of implant loss when a triple antibiotic solution was compared to antiseptic; data were poorly reported in these studies. Bacitracin-specific evidence was found in 2 studies; 1 study reported in 1 systematic review showed a higher percentage of infection when bacitracin irrigation was compared to cefazolin and saline irrigation; however, this was not statistically significant. Another study showed no differences in infections requiring surgical intervention or in hospitalization when bacitracin irrigation was compared to no irrigation. One guideline recommends that wound irrigation and intracavity lavage should not be conducted during surgery, and that applying antibiotics before wound closure should only be done as part of a research trial. Due to the mixed findings across studies, high-quality research is needed to clarify the role of antibiotic irrigation during surgery. Because guideline recommendations about wound irrigation, specifically, are based on research published before 2008, updated guidelines to include research from more current studies are needed to reflect current practice.

An update to a 2020 CADTH Rapid Review was conducted to capture new literature published since 2019 examining the effectiveness of drug treatment informed by genetic testing compared to usual care for adults with depression. Eleven studies were identified: 1 systematic review, 1 health technology assessment, 4 randomized controlled trials reported in 5 publications, 1 non-randomized study, 1 cohort study with historical control, and 2 uncontrolled before-and-after studies. Similar to the conclusions of the 2020 CADTH report, the effectiveness of gene testing for treating depression was unclear. In patients with depression, some studies showed that there were improvements in the clinical effectiveness outcomes in those who received gene testing and other studies showed that there was no difference in outcomes between those who received gene testing and those who did not. No studies showed that gene testing resulted in worse outcomes compared to those who did not receive gene testing. In the current report, the were several limitations across studies such as poor design, inclusion of subjectively measured outcomes, small sample sizes, and a focus on hospital settings ― all of which may not be generalizable to other populations.

Objective: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. Introduction: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. Methods: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews.

BackgroundThe overall objective of this rapid review was to identify infection protection and control recommendations from published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for adults aged 60 years and older in long-term care settingsMethodsComprehensive searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and relevant CPG publishers/repositories were carried out in early March 2020. Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (AGREE-II) were carried out by single reviewers.ResultsA total of 17 relevant CPGs were identified, published in the USA (n=8), Canada (n=6), Australia (n=2), and the United Kingdom (n=1). All of the CPGs dealt with infection control in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and addressed various types of viral respiratory infections (e.g., influenza, COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome). Ten or more CPGs recommended the following infection control measures in LTCF: hand hygiene (n=13), wearing personal protective equipment (n=13), social distancing or isolation (n=13), disinfecting surfaces (n=12), droplet precautions (n=12), surveillance and evaluation (n=11), and using diagnostic testing to confirm illness (n=10). While only two or more CPGs recommended these infection control measures: policies and procedures for visitors, staff and/or residents (n=9), respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette (n=9), providing supplies (n=9), staff and/or residents education (n=8), increasing communication (n=6), consulting or notifying health professionals (n=6), appropriate ventilation practices (n=2), and cohorting equipment (n=2). Ten CPGs also addressed management of viral respiratory infections in LTCF and recommended antiviral chemoprophylaxis (n=10) and one CPG recommended early mobilization of residents.ConclusionThe recommendations from current guidelines overall seem to support environmental measures for infection prevention and antiviral chemoprophylaxis for infection management as the most appropriate first-line response to viral respiratory illness in long-term care.

BackgroundThe overall objective of this rapid overview of reviews (overview hereafter) was to identify evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) for infection control and prevention practices for adults aged 60 years and older in long-term care settings.MethodsComprehensive searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, biorxiv.org/medrxiv.org, clinicaltrials.gov and the Global Infectious Disease Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) were carried out in early March 2020. Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were carried out by single reviewers.ResultsA total of 6 SRs published between 1999 and 2018 were identified and included in the overview. The SRs included between 1 and 37 primary studies representing between 140 to 908 patients. All of the primary studies included in the SRs were carried out in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and examined pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or combined interventions. One high quality SR found mixed results for the effectiveness of hand hygiene to prevent infection (2 studies statistically significant positive results, 1 study non-statistically significant results). One moderate quality SR with meta-analysis found a moderate non-statistically significant effect for personal protective equipment (PPE) in preventing infection and found no statistically significant results for the effectiveness of social isolation. One moderate quality SR reported statically significant evidence for the effectiveness of amantadine and amantadine + PPE to prevent infection with respiratory illness in LTCF.ConclusionThe current evidence suggests that with antiviral chemoprophylaxis with adamantine is effective in managing respiratory illness in residents of long-term care facilities. The rest of the strategies can be used in long-term care facilities, yet have limited evidence supporting their use from systematic reviews.

Additional file 2. Appendices A-I.

Additional file 1. PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

Objectives To illustrate the use of process mining concepts, techniques, and tools to improve the systematic review process. Study Design and Setting We simulated review activities and step-specific methods in the process for systematic reviews conducted by one research team over 1 year to generate an event log of activities, with start/end dates, reviewer assignment by expertise, and person-hours worked. Process mining techniques were applied to the event log to “discover” process models, which allowed visual display, animation, or replay of the simulated review activities. Summary statistics were calculated for person-time and timelines. We also analyzed the social networks of team interactions. Results The 12 simulated reviews included an average of 3,831 titles/abstracts (range: 1,565–6,368) and 20 studies (6–42). The average review completion time was 463 days (range: 289–629) (881 person-hours [range: 243–1,752]). The average person-hours per activity were study selection 26%, data collection 24%, report preparation 23%, and meta-analysis 17%. Social network analyses showed the organizational interaction of team members, including how they worked together to complete review tasks and to hand over tasks upon completion. Conclusion Event log and process mining can be valuable tools for research teams interested in improving and modernizing the systematic review process.

Background Internet gaming disorder (IGD) was included in the DSM-5 in 2013 as a condition requiring further research, and gaming disorder (GD) was included in the ICD-11 in 2018. Given the importance of including these conditions in diagnostic guidelines, a review was conducted to describe their prevalence. Methods Using guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a rapid scoping review. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane library were searched for literature published from inception to July 2018. All review stages were pilot-tested to calibrate reviewers. The titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened by one reviewer to include quantitative primary studies that reported GD or IGD prevalence. Excluded citations were screened by a second reviewer to confirm exclusion. Charting was conducted by one reviewer and verified by another, to capture relevant data. Results were summarized descriptively in tables or text. Results We assessed 5550 potentially relevant citations. No studies on GD were identified. We found 160 studies of various designs that used 35 different methods to diagnose IGD. The prevalence of IGD ranged from 0.21–57.50% in general populations, 3.20–91.00% in clinical populations, and 50.42–79.25% in populations undergoing intervention (severe cases). Most studies were conducted in the Republic of Korea (n = 45), China (n = 29), and the USA (n = 20). Results are also presented for severe IGD and by geographic region, gender/sex, and age groups (child, adolescent, adult). The five most frequently reported health-related variables were depression (67 times), Internet addiction (54 times), anxiety (48 times), impulsiveness (37 times), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (24 times). Conclusions Due to the variability in diagnostic approaches, knowledge users should interpret the wide IGD prevalence ranges with caution. In addition to further research on GD, consensus on the definition of IGD and how it is measured is needed, to better understand the prevalence of these conditions.

Additional file 1: Table S1 PRISMA checklist of reporting items for a systematic review.

Additional file 2: Table S1 Literature search strategy.

Additional file 2: Table S1 Literature search strategy.

Additional file 1: Table S1 PRISMA checklist of reporting items for a systematic review.