Search

Introduction and hypothesis Recommendations for preventing and diagnosing recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) tend to vary between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) because of low-quality scientific evidence, potentially leading to practice variation and suboptimal care. We assessed the quality of existing CPGs for recurrent UTI. Methods A systematic search was performed from January 2000 to June 2021 in PubMed and EMBASE for CPGs on recurrent UTI prevention or hospital diagnostics in Dutch, English, and Spanish. Each CPG was assessed by four appraisers in a multidisciplinary review team, using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results We identified and assessed eight CPGs published between 2013 and 2021. The scope and purpose (mean and standard deviation: 67.3 +/- 21.8) and clarity of presentation (74.8 +/- 17.6) domains scored highly. However, issues with methods, patient participation, conflict of interests, and facilitators and barriers were common and resulted in lower scores for the rigour of development (56.9 +/- 25.9), applicability (19.6 +/- 23.4), stakeholder involvement (50.4 +/- 24.6), and editorial independence (62.1 +/- 23.1) domains. Overall, two CPGs were recommended, three were recommended with modifications, and three were not recommended. Conclusions Significant room for improvement exists in the quality of CPGs for recurrent UTI, with most displaying serious limitations in the stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, and applicability domains. These aspects must be improved to decrease diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty. Developers could benefit from using checklists and following guidelines when developing de novo CPGs.

Objectives: We conceptualize patient values and preferences as the relative importance of health outcomes (RIO) which are often obtained through utility elicitation research. A transparent and structured approach to present synthesized RIO evidence and the certainty of this evidence is needed. This study aims to adapt the summary of findings (SoF) table to describe the RIO. Study Design and Setting: We performed three interactive workshops with a protype version of the SoF table for RIO, evidence adapted from the SoF table for intervention effects. We then tested the new format through semi-structured interviews with professionals who interpret RIO evidence (e.g., systematic review authors and guideline developers). Results: We adapted the SoF table for the presentation of RIO evidence. This SoF table may be easy to use, but bears one risk: some participants misunderstood the utility information and the variability around the RIO. We added a visual analogue scale to clarify the concept of utilities. Conclusion: Through a multi-stage process including brainstorming sessions and interviews, we adapted the SoF table to present RIO evidence. This table may enhance understanding of evidence synthesis of values and preferences, facilitating the incorporation of this type of evidence in decision-making. © 2022

Background Vitamin D has been widely promoted for bone health through supplementation and fortification of the general adult population. However, there is growing evidence that does not support these strategies. Our aim is to review the quality and recommendations on vitamin D nutritional and clinical practice guidelines and to explore predictive factors for their direction and strength. Methods We searched three databases and two guideline repositories from 2010 onwards. We performed a descriptive analysis, a quality appraisal using AGREE II scores (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) and a bivariate analysis evaluating the association between direction and strength of recommendations, AGREE II domains' scores and pre-specified characteristics. Results We included 34 guidelines, 44.1% recommended, 26.5% suggested and 29.4% did not recommend vitamin D supplementation. Guidelines that scored higher for "editorial independence" and "overall quality score" were less likely to recommend or suggest vitamin D supplementation (median 68.8 vs 35.4; P = .001 and 58.3 vs 37.5; P = .02). Guidance produced by government organisations and those that reported source of funding were associated with higher AGREE II scores. Unclear role of source of funding was associated with recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (P = .034). Editorial independence was an independent predictor for recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (OR 1.09; CI95% 1.02 to 1.16; P = .006). Conclusions Policymakers, clinicians and patients should be aware that lower quality guidelines and those reporting conflicts of interest are more likely to promote vitamin D supplementation. Guideline organisations should improve the quality of their recommendations' development and the management of conflicts of interest. Users and editors should be aware of these findings when using and appraising guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid, robust and continually updated evidence synthesis is required to inform management of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women and to keep pace with the emerging evidence during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to undertake a living systematic review to assess the prevalence, clinical manifestations, risk factors, rates of maternal and perinatal complications, potential for mother-to-child transmission, accuracy of diagnostic tests and effectiveness of treatment for COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women (including after miscarriage or abortion). We will search Medline, Embase, WHO COVID-19 database, preprint servers, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure system and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019. We will supplement our search with studies mapped by Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology group, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), COVID-19 study repositories, reference lists and social media blogs. The search will be updated every week and not be restricted by language. We will include observational cohort (≥10 participants) and randomised studies reporting on prevalence of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women, the rates of clinical manifestations and outcomes, risk factors in pregnant and postpartum women alone or in comparison with non-pregnant women with COVID-19 or pregnant women without COVID-19 and studies on tests and treatments for COVID-19. We will additionally include case reports and series with evidence on mother-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in utero, intrapartum or postpartum. We will appraise the quality of the included studies using appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias. At least two independent reviewers will undertake study selection, quality assessment and data extraction every 2 weeks. We will synthesise the findings using quantitative random effects meta-analysis and report OR or proportions with 95% CIs and prediction intervals. Case reports and series will be reported as qualitative narrative synthesis. Heterogeneity will be reported as I2 and τ2 statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is a synthesis of primary data. Regular updates of the results will be published on a dedicated website (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/who-collaborating-centre/pregcov/index.aspx) and disseminated through publications, social media and webinars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

Objective: The objective of the study is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritize clinical guideline (CG) questions for updating, the UpPriority tool. Study Design and Setting: The development of this tool consisted of the following: (1) establishment of the working group, (2) generation of the initial version, (3) optimization of the tool (including an initial feasibility test, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, second feasibility test, external review, and pilot test), and (4) approval of the final version. Results: A total of 87 participants including methodologists, clinicians, and other relevant stakeholders contributed to the development of the UpPriority tool. The tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care. The UpPriority tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item (using a 7-point Likert scale), for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results. Conclusion: The UpPriority tool could be useful for standardizing prioritization processes when updating CGs and for fostering more efficient use of resources in the CG field. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background There is still lack of consensus on the benefit-harm balance of breast cancer screening. In this scenario, women's values and preferences are crucial for developing health-related recommendations. In the context of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer, we conducted a systematic review to inform the European Breast Guidelines. Methods We searched Medline and included primary studies assessing women's values and preferences regarding breast cancer screening and diagnosis decision making. We used a thematic approach to synthesise relevant data. The quality of evidence was determined with GRADE, including GRADE CERQual for qualitative research. Results We included 22 individual studies. Women were willing to accept the psychological and physical burden of breast cancer screening and a significant risk of overdiagnosis and false-positive mammography findings, in return for the benefit of earlier diagnosis. The anxiety engendered by the delay in getting results of diagnostic tests was highlighted as a significant burden, emphasising the need for rapid and efficient screening services, and clear and efficient communication. The confidence in the findings was low to moderate for screening and moderate for diagnosis, predominantly because of methodological limitations, lack of adequate understanding of the outcomes by participants, and indirectness. Conclusions Women value more the possibility of an earlier diagnosis over the risks of a false-positive result or overdiagnosis. Concerns remain that women may not understand the concept of overdiagnosis. Women highly value time efficient screening processes and rapid result delivery and will accept some discomfort for the peace of mind screening may provide.

Introduction Personal recovery has been defined as 'a profound personal and unique process for the individual to change their attitudes, values, feelings, goals, abilities and roles in order to achieve a satisfactory, hopeful and productive way of life, with the possible limitations of the illness'. However, research on personal recovery has focused almost exclusively on adults. This project aims to systematically review the available literature on definitions of personal recovery among children and adolescents with mental health conditions and to undertake a narrative synthesis to develop a conceptual framework of recovery. Methods and analysis Systematic review and narrative synthesis consisting (1) searching scientific literature databases, (2) handsearching, (3) citation tracking, (4) grey literature searching, (5) web-based searching and expert consultation. We will include qualitative and quantitative studies or systematic reviews providing a definition, theoretical or conceptual framework, domains or dimensions of personal recovery among eligible participants. The study will follow standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data extraction. We will assess quality of the evidence using tools appropriate for each study design. We will develop a new conceptual framework using a modified narrative synthesis approach, as follows: (1) describing eligible studies and conducting a preliminary synthesis, (2) determining relationships within and between studies and (3) determining the robustness of the synthesis. Ethics and dissemination We obtained a waiver of approval from our local Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated via publications in international peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. This study will result in a theoretical framework that is based on an exhaustive review of the literature and the input of experts in the field of recovery. We expect that this framework will foster a better understanding of the stages and processes of recovery in children and adolescents with mental health conditions. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018064087.

Objectives: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes. Study Design and Setting: We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback. Results: This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose subdomains of risk of bias as selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness. Conclusion: This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BackgroundInfantile haemangiomas (IH) are soft swellings of the skin that occur in 3-10% of infants. When haemangiomas occur in high-risk areas or when complications develop, active intervention is necessary. ObjectiveTo update a Cochrane Review assessing the interventions for the management of IH in children. MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL and six trials registers up to February 2017. We included 28 trials (1728 participants) assessing 12 interventions. ResultsWe downgraded evidence from high to moderate/low for issues related to risk of bias and imprecision. Oral propranolol (3 mg kg(-1) daily) probably improves clinician-assessed clearance vs placebo [risk ratio (RR) 1661, 95% confidence interval (CI) 422-6534; moderate quality of evidence (QoE)]; we found no evidence of a difference in terms of serious adverse events (RR 105, 95% CI 033-339; low QoE). We found the chance of reduction of redness may be improved with topical timolol maleate (05% gel applied twice daily) when compared with placebo (RR 811, 95% CI 109-6009; low QoE). We found no instances of bradycardia or hypotension for this comparison. ConclusionsOur key results indicate that oral propranolol and topical timolol maleate are more beneficial than placebo in terms of clearance or other measures of resolution, or both, without an increase in harm.

Aim: The aim of this research was to evaluate CAN-Implement. Pro as a structured and systematic process for planning local evidence implementation, to develop a contextual and demographic profile of potential users and assess their initial perceptions and intention to use CAN-Implement. Pro. Methods: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number: H-2016-157). A descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken to capture the demographic characteristics of participants, as well as their initial perceptions of, and intention to use, the software for guideline adaptation projects. Results: A total of 21 individuals representing guideline groups completed the survey. Only 43% had taken part in at least one previous implementation project. Thirty-three percent reported embarking on their first implementation project; 24% had yet to participate in an evidence implementation project. Nursing was the most highly referenced profession at 75%, followed by medical specialties (40%); two respondents indicated allied health professions were included in their implementation group. Respondents represented countries or regions of high and upper middle income as classified by the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. The majority (67%) found CAN-Implement. Pro to be well-organized, easy to navigate and reliable. Most (80%) also indicated they were more likely to return to the software than not; 20% were neutral. In terms of overall satisfaction, more than half (60%) were very satisfied or satisfied, a third (33%) was neutral and 7% were dissatisfied. Over 66% of the respondents considered their group to be familiar with the knowledge-to-action model. A slightly higher percentage (74%) reported software based upon the knowledge-to-action model had a strong conceptual framework. In terms of evidence informed functionality, 75% of the respondents concluded that the software could assist guideline groups to provide structure for their implementation planning; a similar proportion (75%) indicated that the software would also enhance or improve coordination, communication and logistics management in guideline-related implementation projects. Participants were familiar with a range of resources, models, theories and frameworks for implementation, implementation planning and guideline adaptation. The most common frameworks were related to behavioural theories or variations of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Conclusion: Eighty percent of the respondents indicated that their group would be likely to use the software to guide implementation planning in future projects, whereas 20% were neutral. In terms of expectations for contemporary software, multimedia resources rated highly, as did interactive components within the knowledge-to-action model.

Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.

Objectives To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Design Systematic review. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017. Eligibility criteria Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Results We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels. Conclusion The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening. Trial registration number CRD42018095585.

Objective: The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) Updating Guidelines Working Group launched an initiative to develop a glossary (the Updating Glossary) with domains, terms, definitions, and synonyms related to updating of clinical guidelines (CGs). Study Design and Setting: The steering committee developed an initial list of domains, terms, definitions, and synonyms through brainstorming and discussion. The panel members participated in three rounds of feedback to discuss, refine, and clarify the proposed terms, definitions, and synonyms. Finally, the panel members were surveyed to assess their level of agreement regarding the glossary. Results: Eighteen terms were identified and defined: (1) continuous updating, (2) decision to update, (3) fixed updating, (4) full updating, (5) impact of the new evidence, (6) partial updating, (7) prioritization process, (8) reporting process, (9) signal for an update, (10) surveillance process, (11) time of validity, (12) timeframe, (13) tools and resources, (14) up to date, (15) update cycle, (16) update unit, (17) updated version, and (18) updating strategy. Consensus was reached for all terms, definitions, and synonyms (median agreement scores >= 6); except for one term. Conclusions: The G-I-N Updating Guidelines Working Group assembled the Updating Glossary to facilitate and improve the knowledge exchange among CGs developers, researchers, and users. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objectives To assess how guidance documents for developing clinical guidelines (CGs) address the incorporation of patients' views in CGs. Study Design and Setting Systematic review to identify the methodology provided in guidance documents for incorporating (1) patients or representatives and (2) patients' views in the CG development process. The search was performed in 2017 in five databases. Two authors selected the studies, and data extraction was double-checked. Results We included guidance documents from 56 institutions. Of those, 40 (71.4%) recommended the inclusion of patients or their representatives, mainly for developing recommendations (14/40, 35.0%); reviewing the final version (13/40, 32.5%); formulating clinical questions (13/40, 32.5%); defining the scope and objectives (10/40, 25.0%); and dissemination and implementation (10/40, 25.0%). Concrete methods on how to incorporate patients were provided by 47.5% (19/40) of institutions. Forty (71.4%) institutions provided additional strategies to incorporate patients' views. The majority (30/40, 75.0%) suggested sources for obtaining these views (consultation with patients [24/40, 60.0%], using panels' judgment [10/40, 25.0%], conducting de novo research [10/40, 25.0%], or a systematic review [9/40, 22.5%]). Conclusion Although most institutions suggest incorporating patients and their views when developing CGs, little detail is provided on how to do this. Institutions should provide more guidance as this could have a positive impact in guideline applicability. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.

Introduction Due to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG. Methods and analysis To develop the tool, we will use the results and conclusions of a systematic review of methodological research on prioritisation processes for updating and will adopt a methodological approach we have successfully implemented in a previous experience. We will perform a multistep process including (1) generation of an initial version of the tool, (2) optimisation of the tool (feasibility test of the tool, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, external review by CG methodologists and users and pilot test of the tool) and (3) approval of the final version of the tool. At each step of the process, we will (1) calculate absolute frequencies and proportions (quantitative data), (2) use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions (qualitative data) and (3) draft a final report, discuss results and refine the previous versions of the tool. Finally, we will calculate intraclass coefficients with 95% CIs for each item and overall as indicators of agreement among reviewers. Ethics and dissemination We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journal and communicated to interested stakeholders. The tool could support the standardisation of prioritisation processes for updating CGs and therefore have important implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CG field. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved.

Background: Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours. Currently, different pharmacological and surgical options are used to treat localised and metastatic GISTs, although this research field is broad and the body of evidence is scattered and expanding. Our objectives are to identify, describe and organise the current available evidence for GIST through an evidence mapping approach. Methods: We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos in order to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses published between 1990 and March 2016. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR. We organised the results according to identified PICO questions and presented the evidence map in tables and a bubble plot. Results: A total of 17 SRs met eligibility criteria. These reviews included 66 individual studies, of which three quarters were either observational or uncontrolled clinical trials. Overall, the quality of the included SRs was moderate or high. In total, we extracted 14 PICO questions from them and the corresponding results mostly favoured the intervention arm. Conclusions: The most common type of study used to evaluate therapeutic interventions in GIST sarcomas has been non-experimental studies. However, the majority of the interventions are reported as beneficial or probably beneficial by the respective authors of SRs. The evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence about therapeutic interventions.

Background: Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence. Methods: We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR). Results: We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50. Conclusions: This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations. © 2017 The Author(s).

Background: Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effect of health care interventions. They rely on comprehensive access to the available scientific literature. Electronic search strategies alone may not suffice, requiring the implementation of a handsearching approach. We have developed a database to provide an Internet-based platform from which handsearching activities can be coordinated, including a procedure to streamline the submission of these references into CENTRAL, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials. Methods: We developed a database and a descriptive analysis. Through brainstorming and discussion among stakeholders involved in handsearching projects, we designed a database that met identified needs that had to be addressed in order to ensure the viability of handsearching activities. Three handsearching teams pilot tested the proposed database. Once the final version of the database was approved, we proceeded to train the staff involved in handsearching. Results: The proposed database is called BADERI (Database of Iberoamerican Clinical Trials and Journals, by its initials in Spanish). BADERI was officially launched in October 2015, and it can be accessed at www.baderi.com/login.php free of cost. BADERI has an administration subsection, from which the roles of users are managed; a references subsection, where information associated to identified controlled clinical trials (CCTs) can be entered; a reports subsection, from which reports can be generated to track and analyse the results of handsearching activities; and a built-in free text search engine. BADERI allows all references to be exported in ProCite files that can be directly uploaded into CENTRAL. To date, 6284 references to CCTs have been uploaded to BADERI and sent to CENTRAL. The identified CCTs were published in a total of 420 journals related to 46 medical specialties. The year of publication ranged between 1957 and 2016. Conclusions: BADERI allows the efficient management of handsearching activities across different countries and institutions. References to all CCTs available in BADERI can be readily submitted to CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews. © 2017 The Author(s).

Background Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a phenomenon that can occur as a result of the suppression of the central mechanisms of temperature regulation due to anaesthesia, and of prolonged exposure of large surfaces of skin to cold temperatures in operating rooms. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia has been associated with clinical complications such as surgical site infection and wound-healing delay, increased bleeding or cardiovascular events. One of the most frequently used techniques to prevent inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is active body surface warming systems (ABSW), which generate heat mechanically (heating of air, water or gels) that is transferred to the patient via skin contact. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of pre- or intraoperative active body surface warming systems (ABSW), or both, to prevent perioperative complications from unintended hypothermia during surgery in adults. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2015); MEDLINE (PubMed) (1964 to October 2015), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to October 2015), and CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to October 2015). Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an ABSW system aimed at maintaining normothermia perioperatively against a control or against any other ABSW system. Eligible studies also had to include relevant clinical outcomes other than measuring temperature alone. Data collection and analysis Several authors, by pairs, screened references and determined eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and consensus, with the collaboration of a third author. Main results We included 67 trials with 5438 participants that comprised 79 comparisons. Forty-five RCTs compared ABSW versus control, whereas 18 compared two different types of ABSW, and 10 compared two different techniques to administer the same type of ABSW. Forced-air warming (FAW) was by far the most studied intervention. Trials varied widely regarding whether the interventions were applied alone or in combination with other active (based on a different mechanism of heat transfer) and/or passive methods of maintaining normothermia. The type of participants and surgical interventions, as well as anaesthesia management, co-interventions and the timing of outcome measurement, also varied widely. The risk of bias of included studies was largely unclear due to limitations in the reports. Most studies were open-label, due to the nature of the intervention and the fact that temperature was usually the principal outcome. Nevertheless, given that outcome measurement could have been conducted in a blinded manner, we rated the risk of detection and performance bias as high. The comparison of ABSW versus control showed a reduction in the rate of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.66; 3 RCTs, 589 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study at low risk of bias observed a beneficial effect with forced-air warming on major cardiovascular complications (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.00; 1 RCT with 12 events, 300 participants, low-quality evidence) in people at high cardiovascular risk. We found no beneficial effect for mortality. ABSW also reduced blood loss during surgery but the magnitude of this effect seems to be irrelevant (MD -46.17 mL, 95% CI -82.74 to -9.59; I-2 = 78%; 20 studies, 1372 participants). The same conclusion applies to total fluids infused during surgery (MD -144.49 mL, 95% CI -221.57 to -67.40; I-2 = 73%; 24 studies, 1491 participants). These effects did not translate into a significant reduction in the number of participants being transfused or the average amount of blood transfused. ABSW was associated with a reduction in shivering (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54; 29 studies, 1922 participants) and in thermal comfort (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.24; I-2 = 77%, 4 trials, 364 participants). For the comparison between different types of ABSW system or modes of administration of a particular type of ABSW, we found no evidence for the superiority of any system in terms of clinical outcomes, except for extending systemic warming to the preoperative period in participants undergoing major abdominal surgery (one study at low risk of bias). There were limited data on adverse effects (the most relevant being thermal burns). While some trials included a narrative report mentioning that no adverse effects were observed, the majority made no reference to it. Nothing so far suggests that ABSW involves a significant risk to patients. Authors' conclusions Forced-air warming seems to have a beneficial effect in terms of a lower rate of surgical site infection and complications, at least in those undergoing abdominal surgery, compared to not applying any active warming system. It also has a beneficial effect on major cardiovascular complications in people with substantial cardiovascular disease, although the evidence is limited to one study. It also improves patient's comfort, although we found high heterogeneity among trials. While the effect on blood loss is statistically significant, this difference does not translate to a significant reduction in transfusions. Again, we noted high heterogeneity among trials for this outcome. The clinical relevance of blood loss reduction is therefore questionable. The evidence for other types of ABSW is scant, although there is some evidence of a beneficial effect in the same direction on chills/shivering with electric or resistive-based heating systems. Some evidence suggests that extending systemic warming to the preoperative period could be more beneficial than limiting it only to during surgery. Nothing suggests that ABSW systems pose a significant risk to patients. The difficulty in observing a clinically-relevant beneficial effect with ABSW in outcomes other than temperature may be

Objectives: To identify and describe controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published in Spanish Gynaecology and Obstetrics journals. In addition, to assess the quality of the CCTs on Assisted Reproduction Techniques (ART) identified in this project. Study design: In order to identify eligible CCTs, all Spanish Gynaecology and Obstetrics journals were handsearched. Handsearching was conducted following the guidelines provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, which state that each journal article must be carefully reviewed, including original articles and other types of studies, letters to the editor, abstracts, and conference presentations. The results of the handsearching process were compared with an electronic search conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed). A descriptive analysis of the main characteristics of the identified CCTs was performed, as well as a methodological assessment of CCTs on ART. Results: Sixteen Gynaecology and Obstetrics journals were identified, four of which have been indexed in MEDLINE at some point, although not currently. The journal with the most CCTs was "Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecologia". A total of 235 CCTs were published in these journals, of which 29 were on ART. Most CCTs (216, 91.9%) were carried out in a hospital setting; 201 (89.4%) were unicentric. Obstetrics was the most studied subspecialty (46.4%). Among CCTs on ART, the risk of bias was predominantly high. Conclusions: The number of CCTs published in Spanish Gynaecology and Obstetrics journals is limited. CCTs on ART present deficiencies in the report of results and low methodological quality. It is advised that authors and journals adhere to the CONSORT statement and to the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations to reduce risk of bias when designing and disseminating research projects. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Despite being ubiquitous in primary care, there is no accepted consensus on the definition and main components of health checks. They range from periodic health evaluations with a general physician, through the screening and diagnostic tests derived from these visits, to broader screening programs. Health checks may promote a fluid patient-provider relationship, improve the delivery of some preventive measures, and reduce the patient's anxiety. However, they can also expose patients to overdiagnosis and unnecessary interventions. Research on the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of health checks is limited. As a consequence, health checks and screening programs are implemented in several countries and supported by national scientific societies based chiefly on their potential benefits on surrogate outcomes. There is also substantial variability regarding the target population (eg, initial age), tests, or intervals. We call for a rigorous assessment of the net effect of all health checks, taking into consideration common biases (eg, sticky-diagnosis and slippery-linkage biases), patient-important outcomes, potential adverse events, cost-effectiveness, as well as equity and feasibility of the proposed programs.

Background: When two or more cardiovascular risk factors occur in one individual, they may interact in a multiplicative way promoting cardiovascular disease. Exercise has proven to be effective in controlling individual risk factors but its effect on overall cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. Objectives: To assess the effects of exercise training in people with increased cardiovascular risk but without a concurrent cardiovascular disease on general cardiovascular mortality, incidence of cardiovascular events, and total cardiovascular risk. Search methods: A search was conducted in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10 of 12), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 November 2013), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE via Ovid (1947 to Week 47 2013), CINAHL Plus with Full Text via EBSCO (to November 2013), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to 22 November 2013), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 22 November 2013) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). We did not apply any date or language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomized clinical trials comparing aerobic or resistance exercise training versus no exercise or any standard approach that does not include exercise. Participants had to be 18 years of age or older with an average 10-year Framingham risk score of 10% for cardiovascular disease over 10 years, or with two or more cardiovascular risk factors, and no history of cardiovascular disease. Data collection and analysis: The selection of studies and subsequent data collection process were conducted by two independent authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus. The results were reported descriptively. It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis because of the high heterogeneity and high risk of bias in the included studies. Main results: A total of four studies were included that involved 823 participants, 412 in the exercise group and 411 in the control group. Follow-up of participants ranged from 16 weeks to 6 months. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias. Meta-analysis was not possible because the interventions (setting, type and intensity of exercise) and outcome measurements were not comparable, and the risk of bias in the identified studies was high. No study assessed cardiovascular or all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events as individual outcomes. One or more of the studies reported on total cardiovascular risk, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life but the available evidence was not sufficient to determine the effectiveness of exercise. Adverse events and smoking cessation were not assessed in the included studies. Authors' conclusions: Evidence to date is entirely limited to small studies with regard to sample size, short-term follow-up, and high risk of methodological bias, which makes it difficult to derive any conclusions on the efficacy or safety of aerobic or resistance exercise on groups with increased cardiovascular risk or in individuals with two or more coexisting risk factors. Further randomized clinical trials assessing controlled exercise programmes on total cardiovascular risk in individuals are warranted. © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration.