Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction To compare neonatal, obstetrical, and maternal outcomes associated with outpatient vs inpatient management of pregnancies with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). Material and Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database and Central Register from January 1, 1990 to July 31, 2023 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing outpatient with inpatient management for pregnant persons diagnosed with PPROM before 37 weeks' gestation. No language restriction was applied. We applied a random effects model for meta‐analysis. Trustworthiness was assessed using recently published guidance and Risk of bias using the RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS‐I tool for cohort studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence (COE). Outcomes of interest included perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidities, latency and gestational age at delivery, and maternal morbidities. RCTs and cohort studies were analyzed separately. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviewsr: CRD42022295275. Results From 2825 records, two RCTs and 10 cohort studies involving 1876 patients were included in the review and meta‐analysis. Outpatient management protocols varied but generally included brief initial hospitalization, strict eligibility criteria, and surveillance with laboratory and ultrasound investigations. Outpatient management showed lower rates of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (cohort: RR 0.63 [0.52–0.77, very low COE]), longer latency to delivery (RCT: MD 7.43 days [1.14–13.72 days, moderate COE], cohort: MD 8.78 days [2.29–15.26 days, low COE]), higher gestational age at birth (cohort: MD 7.70 days [2.02–13.38 days, low COE]), lower rates of Apgar scores <7 at 5 min of life (cohort: RR 0.66 [0.50–0.89, very low COE]), and lower rates of histological chorioamnionitis (cohort: RR 0.74 [0.62–0.89, low COE]) without increased risks of adverse neonatal, obstetrical, or maternal outcomes. Conclusions Meta‐analysis of data from RCTs and cohort studies with very low‐to‐moderate certainty of evidence indicates that further high‐quality research is needed to evaluate the safety and potential benefits of outpatient management for selected PPROM cases, given the moderate‐to‐high risk of bias in the included studies. This systematic review and meta‐analysis is the most current review and the first to include observational studies on the topic. It suggests that outpatient management may be a viable and potentially beneficial option for selected PPROM patients, showing no significant difference in severe neonatal, obstetrical, or maternal outcomes compared to inpatient care. Outpatient care was associated with longer latency from PPROM to delivery, higher gestational age at delivery, and lower risks of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, low Apgar scores, and histological chorioamnionitis.

The aim of this study is to provide updated guidance on when The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down more than one level for imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach. Based on the first GRADE guidance addressing imprecision rating in 2011, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this guidance. GRADE suggests aligning imprecision criterion for systematic reviews and guidelines using the approach that relies on thresholds and confidence intervals (CI) of absolute effects as a primary criterion for imprecision rating (i.e., CI approach). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the threshold(s) of interest, one should consider rating down two or three levels. When the CI does not cross the threshold(s) and the relative effect is large, one should implement the optimal information size (OIS) approach. If the sample size of the meta-analysis is far less than the OIS, one should consider rating down more than one level for imprecision. GRADE provides updated guidance for imprecision rating in a minimally contextualized approach, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should seriously consider rating down two or three levels for imprecision.

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).ConclusionCorticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

AbstractUpdatesThis is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline.Clinical questionWhat is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?ContextThe evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.What is new?The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.About this guidelineThis living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.Future recommendationsRecommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.

This article describes conceptual advances of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group guidance to evaluate the certainty of evidence (confidence in evidence, quality of evidence) from network meta-analysis (NMA). Application of the original GRADE guidance, published in 2014, in a number of NMAs has resulted in advances that strengthen its conceptual basis and make the process more efficient. This guidance will be useful for systematic review authors who aim to assess the certainty of all pairwise comparisons from an NMA and who are familiar with the basic concepts of NMA and the traditional GRADE approach for pairwise meta-analysis. Two principles of the original GRADE NMA guidance are that we need to rate the certainty of the evidence for each pairwise comparison within a network separately and that in doing so we need to consider both the direct and indirect evidence. We present, discuss, and illustrate four conceptual advances: (1) consideration of imprecision is not necessary when rating the direct and indirect estimates to inform the rating of NMA estimates, (2) there is no need to rate the indirect evidence when the certainty of the direct evidence is high and the contribution of the direct evidence to the network estimate is at least as great as that of the indirect evidence, (3) we should not trust a statistical test of global incoherence of the network to assess incoherence at the pairwise comparison level, and (4) in the presence of incoherence between direct and indirect evidence, the certainty of the evidence of each estimate can help decide which estimate to believe. •The application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation approach to a number of network meta-analyses in the 3 years since the original guidance publication has led to advances that have strengthened the conceptual basis.•We present, discuss, and illustrate four conceptual advances. These are based on two principles: we need to rate the certainty of the evidence of each pairwise comparison within a network separately and that we need to consider both the direct and indirect evidence contributing to each network estimate.•Although maximizing the efficiency of the process is desirable, as illustrated in the conceptual advances, use of these strategies requires careful judgment.

Correspondence to: A D Oxman oxman@online.no Summary points Clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers sometimes neglect important criteria, give undue weight to criteria, and do not use the best available evidence to inform their judgments Explicit and transparent systems for decision making can help to ensure that all important criteria are considered and that decisions are informed by the best available research evidence The purpose of Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is to help people use evidence in a structured and transparent way to inform decisions in the context of clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system or public health recommendations and decisions EtD frameworks have a common structure that includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the evidence, and drawing conclusions, though there are some differences between frameworks for each type of decision EtD frameworks inform users about the judgments that were made and the evidence supporting those judgments by making the basis for decisions transparent to target audiences EtD frameworks also facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision makers in other jurisdictions to adopt recommendations or decisions, or adapt them to their context Introduction Healthcare decision making is complex. Decision-making processes and the factors (criteria) that decision makers should consider vary for different types of decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system or public health recommendations or decisions.1 2 3 4 However, some criteria are relevant for all of these decisions, including the anticipated effects of the options being considered, the certainty of the evidence for those effects (also referred to as quality of evidence or confidence in effect estimates), and the costs and feasibility of the options. Rigorously developed guidelines synthesise the available relevant research, facilitating the translation of evidence into recommendations for clinical practice.9 However, the quality of guidelines is often suboptimal.10 11 If guidelines are not developed systematically and transparently, clinicians are not able to decide whether to rely on them or to explore disagreements when faced with conflicting recommendations.12 The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group has previously developed and refined a system to assess the certainty of evidence of effects and strength of recommendations.13 14 15 More than 100 organisations globally, including the World Health Organization, the Cochrane Collaboration, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) now use or have adopted the principles of the GRADE system. Cure by 120 weeks, adverse drug reactions (clinical and biological serious adverse events), mortality, time to culture conversion, culture conversion at 24 weeks, acquired resistance to fluoroquinolone and injectable drugs Setting: Global, MDR-TB clinics Perspective: Population perspective (health system) Subgroups: Patients with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) or pre-XDR tuberculosis or those with resistance or contraindication to fluoroquinolones or injectables Background: The emergence of drug resistance is a major threat to global tuberculosis care and control.

Correspondence to: P Alonso-Coello palonso@santpau.cat Summary points Clinicians do not have the time or resources to consider the underlying evidence for the myriad decisions they must make each day and, as a consequence, rely on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines Guideline panels should consider all the relevant factors (criteria) that influence a decision or recommendation in a structured, explicit, and transparent way and provide clinicians with clear and actionable recommendations The GRADE working group has developed Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for different types of decisions and recommendations. In this article we will describe EtD frameworks for clinical practice recommendations The general structure of the EtD framework for clinical recommendations is similar to EtD frameworks for other types of recommendations and decisions, and includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the different criteria, and conclusions Clinical recommendations require considering criteria differently, depending on whether an individual patient or a population perspective is taken. To ensure trustworthiness, clinical practice guidelines are made by groups of people (guideline panels) with relevant skills, perspectives, and knowledge; they are informed by the best available evidence; and they are systematically developed.1 2 3 4 In the first article in this series, we described GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks and their rationale for different types of decisions.5 In this second article, we describe the use of EtD frameworks for clinical recommendations and how they can help clinicians and patients who use those recommendations. Death, stroke, major bleeding, myocardial infarction, treatment burden Setting: High resource setting Perspective: Health system Subgroups: Patients who are well controlled with warfarin Background: Warfarin reduces the risk for ischaemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk for haemorrhage and requires frequent blood tests and clinic visits to monitor the international normalised ratio (INR) and adjust the dose.

Workshops or training sessions on medical writing and publishing exist worldwide. We aimed to evaluate published articles about such workshops and examine both the content and teaching strategies employed. We searched ISI Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE, ERIC, Ovid Medline, and the grey literature. We considered no language, geographical location, or time period limitations. We included randomized controlled trials, before–after studies, surveys, cohort studies, and program evaluation and development studies. We descriptively reported the results. Out of 222 articles that underwent a full-text review, 30 were deemed eligible. The educational sessions were sporadic, with researchers often developing their own content and methods. Fifteen articles reported teaching the standard structure of medical articles, ten articles reported on teaching optimal English language use for writing articles, nine articles discussed publication ethics issues, and three articles discussed publication strategies to enhance the chance of publication. Most reports lacked in-depth descriptions of the content and strategies used, and the approach to those topics was relatively superficial. Existing workshops have covered topics such as the standard structure of articles, publication ethics, techniques for improving publication rates, and how to use the English language. However, many other topics are left uncovered. The reports and practice of academic-teaching courses should be improved.

When direct and indirect estimates of treatment effects are coherent, network meta-analysis (NMA) estimates should have increased precision (narrower confidence or credible intervals compared with relying on direct estimates alone), a benefit of NMA. We have, however, observed cases of sparse networks in which combining direct and indirect estimates results in marked widening of the confidence intervals. In many cases, the assumption of common between-study heterogeneity across the network seems to be responsible for this counterintuitive result. Although the assumption of common between-study heterogeneity across paired comparisons may, in many cases, not be appropriate, it is required to ensure the feasibility of estimating NMA treatment effects. This is especially the case in sparse networks, in which data are insufficient to reliably estimate different variances across the network. The result, however, may be spuriously wide confidence intervals for some of the comparisons in the network (and, in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, inappropriately low ratings of the certainty of the evidence through rating down for serious imprecision). Systematic reviewers should be aware of the problem and plan sensitivity analyses that produce intuitively sensible confidence intervals. These sensitivity analyses may include using informative priors for the between-study heterogeneity parameter in the Bayesian framework and the use of fixed effects models.

This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis. Incoherence represents important differences between direct and indirect estimates that contribute to a network estimate. Bias due to limitations in study design or publication bias, indirectness, and intransitivity may be responsible for incoherence. Addressing incoherence requires a judgment regarding the importance of the impact on the network estimate. Reviewers need to be alert to the possibility of misguidedly arriving at excessively low ratings of certainty by rating down for both incoherence and other closely related GRADE domains. This article describes and illustrates each of these issues and provides explicit guidance on how to deal with them.