Explore the vast range of titles available.

The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19. We conducted highly sensitive searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 28, 2020. No study design, publication status or language restriction were applied. We included studies that assessed patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and examined one or more prognostic factors for mortality or disease severity. Reviewers working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome. We included 207 studies and found high or moderate certainty that the following 49 variables provide valuable prognostic information on mortality and/or severe disease in patients with COVID-19 infectious disease: Demographic factors (age, male sex, smoking), patient history factors (comorbidities, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cardiac arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer and dyslipidemia), physical examination factors (respiratory failure, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anorexia, tachypnea, haemoptysis, abdominal pain, fatigue, fever and myalgia or arthralgia), laboratory factors (high blood procalcitonin, myocardial injury markers, high blood White Blood Cell count (WBC), high blood lactate, low blood platelet count, plasma creatinine increase, high blood D-dimer, high blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), high blood C-reactive protein (CRP), decrease in lymphocyte count, high blood aspartate aminotransferase (AST), decrease in blood albumin, high blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), high blood neutrophil count, high blood B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN), high blood creatine kinase (CK), high blood bilirubin and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), radiological factors (consolidative infiltrate and pleural effusion) and high SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score). Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. Prospero registration number: CRD42020178802. Protocol available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598v1.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of dual agent antiplatelet therapy combining clopidogrel and aspirin to prevent recurrent thrombotic and bleeding events compared with aspirin alone in patients with acute minor ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO website, PsycINFO, and grey literature up to 4 July 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsTwo reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria and assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A third team member reviewed all final decisions, and the team resolved disagreements through discussion. When reports omitted data that were considered important, clarification and additional information was sought from the authors. The analysis was conducted in RevMan 5.3 and MAGICapp based on GRADE methodology.ResultsThree eligible trials involving 10 447 participants were identified. Compared with aspirin alone, dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin that was started within 24 hours of symptom onset reduced the risk of non-fatal recurrent stroke (relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.80, I2=0%, absolute risk reduction 1.9%, high quality evidence), without apparent impact on all cause mortality (1.27, 0.73 to 2.23, I2=0%, moderate quality evidence) but with a likely increase in moderate or severe extracranial bleeding (1.71, 0.92 to 3.20, I2=32%, absolute risk increase 0.2%, moderate quality evidence). Most stroke events, and the separation in incidence curves between dual and single therapy arms, occurred within 10 days of randomisation; any benefit after 21 days is extremely unlikely.ConclusionsDual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin given within 24 hours after high risk TIA or minor ischaemic stroke reduces subsequent stroke by about 20 in 1000 population, with a possible increase in moderate to severe bleeding of 2 per 1000 population. Discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy within 21 days, and possibly as early as 10 days, of initiation is likely to maximise benefit and minimise harms.

AbstractObjectiveTo develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument.DesignInstrument development and reliability study.Data sourcesInitial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument.ParticipantsWith the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates.Main outcome measuresCore credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined.ResultsThe credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors.ConclusionsResearchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an increasingly popular statistical method of synthesising evidence to assess the comparative benefits and harms of multiple treatments in a single analysis. Several automated software packages facilitate conducting NMA using either of two alternative approaches, Bayesian or frequentist frameworks. Researchers must choose a framework for conducting NMA (Bayesian or frequentist) and select appropriate model(s), and those conducting NMA need to understand the assumptions and limitations of different approaches. Bayesian models are more frequently used and can be more flexible but require checking additional assumptions and greater statistical expertise that are often ignored. The present paper describes the important theoretical aspects of Bayesian and frequentist models for NMA and the applications and considerations of contrast-synthesis and arm-synthesis NMAs. In addition, we present evidence from a limited number of simulation and empirical studies that compared different frequentist and Bayesian models and provide an overview of available automated software packages to perform NMA. We will conclude that when analysts choose appropriate models, there are seldom important differences in the results of Bayesian and frequentist approaches and that network meta-analysts should therefore focus on model features rather than the statistical framework.

AbstractClinical questionIn adult patients undergoing colonoscopy for any indication (screening, surveillance, follow-up of positive faecal immunochemical testing, or gastrointestinal symptoms such as blood in the stools) what are the benefits and harms of computer-aided detection (CADe)?Context and current practiceColorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death globally, typically arises from adenomatous polyps. Detection and removal of polyps during colonoscopy can reduce the risk of cancer. CADe systems use artificial intelligence (AI) to assist endoscopists by analysing real-time colonoscopy images to detect potential polyps. Despite their increasing use in clinical practice, guideline recommendations that carefully balance all patient-important outcomes remain unavailable. In this first iteration of a living guideline, we address the use of CADe at the level of an individual patient.EvidenceEvidence for this recommendation is drawn from a living systematic review of 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving more than 30 000 participants and a companion microsimulation study simulating 10 year follow-up for 100 000 individuals aged 60-69 years to assess the impact of CADe on patient-important outcomes. While no direct evidence was found for critical outcomes of colorectal cancer incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, low certainty data from the trials indicate that CADe may increase positive endoscopy findings. The microsimulation modelling, however, suggests little to no effect on CRC incidence, CRC-related mortality, or colonoscopy-related complications (perforation and bleeding) over the 10 year follow-up period, although low certainty evidence indicates CADe may increase the number of colonoscopies performed per patient. A review of values and preferences identified that patients value mortality reduction and quality of care but worry about increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and more frequent surveillance.RecommendationFor adults who have agreed to undergo colonoscopy, we suggest against the routine use of CADe (weak recommendation).How this guideline was createdAn international panel, including three patient partners, 11 healthcare providers, and seven methodologists, deemed by MAGIC and The BMJ to have no relevant competing interests, developed this recommendation. For this guideline the panel took an individual patient approach. The panel started by defining the clinical question in PICO format, and prioritised outcomes including CRC incidence and mortality. Based on the linked systematic review and microsimulation study, the panel sought to balance the benefits, harms, and burdens of CADe and assumed patient preferences when making this recommendationUnderstanding the recommendationThe guideline panel found the benefits of CADe on critical outcomes, such as CRC incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, over a 10 year follow up period to be highly uncertain. Low certainty evidence suggests little to no impact on CRC-related mortality, while the potential burdens—including more frequent surveillance colonoscopies—are likely to affect many patients. Given the small and uncertain benefits and the likelihood of burdens, the panel issued a weak recommendation against routine CADe use.The panel acknowledges the anticipated variability in values and preferences among patients and clinicians when considering these uncertain benefits and potential burdens. In healthcare settings where CADe is available, individual decision making may be appropriate.UpdatesThis is the first iteration of a living practice guideline. The panel will update this living guideline if ongoing evidence surveillance identifies new CADe trial data that substantially alters our conclusions about CRC incidence, mortality, or burdens, or studies that increase our certainty in values and preferences of individual patients. Updates will provide recommendations on the use of CADe from a healthcare systems perspective (including resource use, acceptability, feasibility, and equity), as well as the combined use of CADe and computer aided diagnosis (CADx). Users can access the latest guideline version and supporting evidence on MAGICapp, with updates periodically published in The BMJ.

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), widely used to treat high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, has recently been extended to younger patients at lower operative risk in whom long-term durability of TAVI devices is an important concern. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies addressing the frequency of structural valve deterioration (SVD) after TAVI.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to September 2016. We included observational studies following patients with TAVI for at least 2 years. Independently and in duplicate, we evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for SVD post-TAVI. Our review used the GRADE system to assess quality of evidence. We pooled incidence rates using a random effects model.ResultsThirteen studies including 8914 patients, with a median follow-up between 1.6 and 5 years, reported an incidence of SVD post-TAVI between 0 to 1.34 per 100 patient years. The pooled incidence of SVD was 28.08 per 10 000 patients/year (95% CI 2.46 to 73.44 per 100 patient years). Of those who developed SVD, 12% underwent valve re-intervention. Confidence in the evidence was moderate due to inconsistency among studies.ConclusionStructural valve deterioration is probably an infrequent event within the first 5 years after TAVI. Ascertaining the impact of SVD and the need for valve-related re-interventions to inform recommendations for patients with a longer life-expectancy will require studies including a large number of patients with longer follow-up (>10 years).

Risk models, informing optimal long-term medical management, seldom use natriuretic peptides (NP) in ascertaining the absolute risk of outcomes for HF patients. Individual studies evaluating the prognostic value of NPs in HF patients have reported varying effects, arriving at best estimates requires a systematic review. We systematically summarized the best evidence regarding the prognostic value of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and NT-proBNP in predicting mortality and hospitalizations in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients. We searched bibliographic databases from 2005 to 2018 and included studies evaluating the association of BNP or NT-proBNP with mortality or hospitalization using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. We pooled hazard ratios using random-effect models, explored heterogeneity using pre-specified subgroup analyses, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations and Development Evaluation framework. We identified 67 eligible studies reporting on 76,178 ambulatory HF patients with a median BNP of 407 pg/mL (261–574 pg/mL). Moderate to high-quality evidence showed that a 100-pg/mL increase in BNP was associated with a 14% increased hazard of mortality (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06–1.22); a 1-log-unit increase was associated with a 51% increased hazard of mortality (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.41–1.61) and 48% increased hazard of mortality or hospitalization (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.29–1.69). With moderate to high certainty, we observed a 14% independent relative increase in mortality, translating to a clinically meaningful increase in absolute risk even for low-risk patients. The observed associations may help in developing more accurate risk models that incorporate NPs and accurately prognosticate HF patients.

The prognostic value of age and other non-hematological factors in predicting outcomes in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing antileukemic therapy is not well understood. We performed a systematic review to determine the association between these factors and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue among these patients. We searched Medline and Embase through October 2021 for studies in which researchers quantified the relationship between age, comorbidities, frailty, performance status, or functional status; and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue in older patients with AML receiving antileukemic therapy. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, conducted random-effects meta-analyses, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We included 90 studies. Meta-analysis showed that age (per 5-year increase, HR 1.16 95% CI 1.11-1.21, high-quality evidence), comorbidities (Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 1.60 95% CI 1.31-1.95, high-quality evidence), and performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/ World Health Organization (ECOG/WHO): 2+ VS less than 2, HR 1.63 95% CI 1.43-1.86, high-quality evidence; ECOG/WHO: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 2.00 95% CI 1.52-2.63, moderate-quality evidence) were associated with long-term mortality. These studies provided inconsistent and non-informative results on short-term mortality (within 90 days) and quality of life. High-quality or moderate-quality evidence support that age, comorbidities, performance status predicts the long-term prognosis of older patients with AML undergoing antileukemic treatment.

To determine the effectiveness and safety of amino acids in preventing the mortality and morbidity among preterm infants. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, and grey literature, from databases inception to January 2021. We included randomized trials that evaluated any amino acids on preterm or low-birth weight infants. We performed frequentist pairwise and network meta-analyses and used the GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence and provide a summary of the results.We included 18 trials (3702 infants). Low certainty evidence showed that there seems to be no benefit for arginine, glutamine, or N-acetylcysteine in reducing all-cause mortality. Oral arginine likely results in reduction of necrotizin enterocolitis (NEC) stage ≥ II (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.26–0.90; moderate certainty). Oral glutamine may reduce the likelihood of developing late-onset sepsis (LOS) compared to placebo (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.47–0.82; low certainty); and likely reduces time to reach full enteral feeding (MD = − 2.63 days; 95% CI − 4.99 to − 0.27; moderate certainty). Amino acids may have no effect on mortality. Oral arginine may reduce severe NEC, and oral glutamine may reduce LOS and the time to reach full feeding. Systematic review registration : PROSPERO registration number: CRD4201603873.

IntroductionLarge language model (LLM)-linked chatbots are being increasingly applied in healthcare due to their impressive functionality and public availability. Studies have assessed the ability of LLM-linked chatbots to provide accurate clinical advice. However, the methods applied in these Chatbot Assessment Studies are inconsistent due to the lack of reporting standards available, which obscures the interpretation of their study findings. This protocol outlines the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) reporting guideline.Methods and analysisThe development of the CHART reporting guideline will consist of three phases, led by the Steering Committee. During phase one, the team will identify relevant reporting guidelines with artificial intelligence extensions that are published or in development by searching preprint servers, protocol databases, and the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health research Network. During phase two, we will conduct a scoping review to identify studies that have addressed the performance of LLM-linked chatbots in summarising evidence and providing clinical advice. The Steering Committee will identify methodology used in previous Chatbot Assessment Studies. Finally, the study team will use checklist items from prior reporting guidelines and findings from the scoping review to develop a draft reporting checklist. We will then perform a Delphi consensus and host two synchronous consensus meetings with an international, multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to refine reporting checklist items and develop a flow diagram.Ethics and disseminationWe will publish the final CHART reporting guideline in peer-reviewed journals and will present findings at peer-reviewed meetings. Ethical approval was submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board and deemed “not required” in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) for the development of the CHART reporting guideline (#17025).RegistrationThis study protocol is preregistered with Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/59E2Q.