Explore the vast range of titles available.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. World Health Organization.

The objective of the study is to review the literature for studies that assessed the concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments’ databases and evaluate their methods. We conducted a systematic survey of the health literature to identify eligible studies. We searched both Medline and EMBASE up to February 2017. We conducted study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment in duplicate and independently using standardized forms. We subcategorized ‘nonconcordant disclosures’ as either ‘partially nonconcordant’ or ‘completely nonconcordant’. The main outcome was the percentage of authors with ‘nonconcordant’ disclosures. We summarized results by three levels of analysis: authors, companies, and studies. We identified 27 eligible journal articles. The top two types of documents assessed were published articles (n = 13) and published guidelines (n = 9). The most commonly used payment database was the Open Payments Database (n = 16). The median percentage of authors with ‘nonconcordant’ disclosures was 81%; the median percentage was 43% for ‘completely nonconcordant’ disclosures. The percentage of ‘nonconcordant’ conflict of interest (COI) reporting by companies varied between 23% and 85%. The methods of concordance assessment, as well as the labeling and definitions of assessed outcomes varied widely across the included studies. We judged three of the included studies as high-quality studies. Underreporting of health science researchers’ financial COIs is pervasive. Studies assessing COI underreporting suffer from a number of limitations that could have overestimated their findings.

BackgroundTo summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.ResultsWe included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.DiscussionHydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Background There are uncertainties about mitigating strategies for swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an opportunity to learn from the experience of previous re-openings to better plan the future one. Our objectives are to systematically review the evidence on (1) the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission; and (2) the effects of strategies for preventing COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities. Methods We conducted a rapid systematic review. We searched in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 19, 2021. We included non-randomized studies for the review on association of COVID-19 transmission and swimming-related activities. We included guidance documents reporting on the strategies for prevention of COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities. We also included studies on the efficacy and safety of the strategies. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility. For the guidance documents, a single reviewer assessed the eligibility and a second reviewer verified the judgement. Teams of two reviewers extracted data independently. We summarized the findings of included studies narratively. We synthesized information from guidance documents according to the identified topics and subtopics, and presented them in tabular and narrative formats. Results We identified three studies providing very low certainty evidence for the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission. The analysis of 50 eligible guidance documents identified 11 topics: ensuring social distancing, ensuring personal hygiene, using personal protective equipment, eating and drinking, maintaining the pool, managing frequently touched surfaces, ventilation of indoor spaces, screening and management of sickness, delivering first aid, raising awareness, and vaccination. One study assessing the efficacy of strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission did not find an association between compliance with precautionary restrictions and COVID-19 transmission. Conclusions There are major gaps in the research evidence of relevance to swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the synthesis of the identified strategies from guidance documents can inform public health management strategies for swimming-related activities, particularly in future re-opening plans.

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to April 2021. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 279 living publications relating to 76 LSRs. Of the 279 publications, 11% were protocols, 23% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 50% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 16% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%); all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flow through the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

The objectives of this study are to describe the characteristics of living systematic reviews (LSRs) and to understand their life cycles. We conducted a comprehensive search up to April 2021 then selected articles and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We undertook descriptive analyses and calculated delay in version update and delay since the last published version. We included 76 eligible LSRs with a total of 279 eligible versions. The majority of LSRs was from the clinical field (70%), was COVID-19 related (63%), and had a funding source specified (62%). The median number of versions per LSR was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 1–4; range 1–19). The median and IQR for the ratio of the actual period of update to the planned period of update was 1.12 (0.81; 1.71). Out of all reviews with a ‘planned period of update’ and at least one update (N = 19), eight LSRs (42%) had a period since last published version greater than 3 times the planned period of update. No LSR included a ‘retirement notice’ in their latest published version. While most LSR complied with the planned period of producing updates, a substantive proportion lagged since their last update.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an emerging type of review that continuously updates as new evidence becomes available. A previous methodological survey conducted in 2021 identified and studied all health-based LSRs. Since then, the landscape has changed, including the on-going accumulation of COVID-19 research and availability of automation tools. Furthermore, various methods and guidance exist for conducting LSRs and review authors are often encouraged to explore opportunities to maximize dissemination. We conducted an LSR survey update to describe LSRs in a “post-COVID” era. Our objectives were to summarize the uptake of LSRs, describe their characteristics, including methodological and communicative characteristics, and identify patterns in LSR attributes. We systematically searched for new LSRs and any updates—including updates from LSRs identified previously—published between May 2021 and March 2023 in any health field. Eligible articles were identified and data extracted and combined with data from the original survey. Outcomes broadly included LSR characteristics and uptake, and methodological and communicative characteristics. Analyses were descriptive and included visualizations to explore distributions, combinations, and any time effects of characteristics. A total of 549 records across 168 individual LSRs were identified (of which 92 LSRs were newly detected). Although the presence of COVID-19 LSRs dominated in later years, there was an increased uptake in non–COVID-19 LSRs; the former were found to search the evidence and update/publish results more frequently. Where reported, the approach to conducting updates varied considerably, including a wide range of prespecified frequencies and/or triggers. Of the 337 updates, 25.5% reported on ongoing studies, and among LSRs with published results, 58.5% used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The proportion of LSRs with a centralized platform for sharing results was higher among (i) those that included updates, (ii) Cochrane reviews, (iii) non–COVID-19 LSRs, and (iv) funded LSRs. Few LSRs included interactive features. The number of LSRs is growing at an accelerating rate, but this survey illustrates that there are still methodological limitations and challenges that carefully need addressing. Key areas for improvement include more explicit prespecified updating strategies and better use of web-based platforms for disseminating results. Every year, a huge amount of health-related research is published and it is difficult for busy doctors and health care workers to keep up to date with all of the new evidence. To help with this, the research can be summarized by carrying out a review. This is known as a “systematic review” if it is carefully carried out by two or more researchers. We use systematic reviews to get an accurate and fair summary of all the research available. However, these reviews can take a long time to create and can quickly become out-of-date. There is a new and exciting type of review called a “LSR” which is continually updated with new research evidence as it becomes available. This type of review is hugely important for “high-priority” health questions that need to be put into practice straight away, such as new treatments for COVID-19. As LSRs have become more popular since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to understand how LSRs are actually being performed and how well they share their results. In 2021, a group of researchers collected all the health-related LSRs that exist. In March 2023, we aimed to collect any new LSRs since then, and summarize what they look like now. Including LSRs found by the previous group, we found 168 LSRs, where 92 were found since May 2021. There now exist more COVID-19-related LSRs than non–COVID-19-related ones, but both groups are increasing in popularity. How LSRs decided when to “update” their results varied a lot. Non–COVID-19-related LSRs and those that had funding were more likely to use online tools to share their results, but very few used tools to let readers interact with the results. By looking at how LSRs are performed, we have shown that there are still challenges that need more work. Key areas for improvement include creating better ways on deciding when and how these reviews should be updated, and building tools to help researchers summarize the findings in a way that is reliable and easily understandable to everyone involved, including patients. •A search of health LSRs up to 31 March 23 found 549 records across 168 unique LSRs.•COVID LSRs have surpassed non-COVID LSRs, but both show an increased uptake.•There is huge variation in update frequencies and methods.•Update triggers are being used but could be more proactive than reactive.•Dissemination of LSRs could take better advantage of current technology.

Background Patients and consumers are increasingly engaged in health policymaking, research and drug regulation. Having financial relationships with the health industry creates situations of conflicts of interest (COI) and might compromise their meaningful and unbiased participation. Objective To synthesize available evidence on the financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE. We selected studies and ed data in duplicate and independently. We reported on outcomes related to financial relationships of individuals with, and/or funding of organizations by the health industry. Results We identified a total of 14 510 unique citations, of which 24 reports of 23 studies were eligible. Three studies (13%) addressed the financial relationship of patient and consumer representatives with the health industry. Of these, two examined the proportion of public speakers in drug regulatory processes who have financial relationships; the proportions in the two studies were 25% and 19% respectively. Twenty studies (87%) addressed funding of patient and consumer organizations. The median proportion of organizations that reported funding from the health industry was 62% (IQR: 34%‐69%) in questionnaire surveys, and 75% (IQR: 58%‐85%) in surveys of their websites. Among organizations for which there was evidence of industry funding, a median proportion of 29% (IQR: 27%‐44%) acknowledged on their websites receiving that funding. Conclusion Financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations are common and may not be disclosed. Stricter regulation on disclosure and management is needed.

ObjectiveAdverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight (LBW), remain the leading causes of child morbidity and mortality in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the strength and consistency of the association between maternal education and LBW in LMICs.MethodsWe conducted an electronic search of studies published between 2000 and 2014 in four databases using three MeSH keywords – birth outcomes including LBW; individual-level socioeconomic measures including maternal education; and a list of LMICs. The methodological quality of each eligible study was evaluated following the GRADE approach. A total of 26 studies were entered into meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed to account for heterogeneity in the measurement of exposure and country development level.FindingsThe meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant pooled estimate (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.61–0.74) indicating that maternal education is protective against LBW in LMICs. Heterogeneity was found high in subgroup analyses in studies from lower-middle income countries and in those measuring maternal education in academic classes, but drops considerably in studies from low-income countries and those measuring it in number of years of schooling. The quality of the overall body of evidence is moderate due to high observed heterogeneity in some subgroup analyses and the presence of studies with high risk of bias.InterpretationHigher maternal education associates with a moderate but statistically significant decrease in the risk of delivering a LBW infant in LMICs. Enhancing girls’ and women’s access to education operates through a number of pathways to improve birth outcomes and reduce LBW in LMICs.

IntroductionProper strategies to minimise the risk of infection in individuals handling the bodies of deceased persons infected with 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) are urgently needed. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to scope and assess the effects of specific strategies for the management of the bodies.MethodsWe searched five general, three Chinese and four coronavirus disease (COVID-19)–specific electronic databases. We searched registries of clinical trials, websites of governmental and other relevant organisations, reference lists of the included papers and relevant systematic reviews, and Epistemonikos for relevant systematic reviews. We included guidance documents providing practical advice on the handling of bodies of deceased persons with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Then, we sought primary evidence of any study design reporting on the efficacy and safety of the identified strategies in coronaviruses. We included evidence relevant to contextual factors (ie, acceptability). A single reviewer extracted data using a pilot-tested form and graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. A second reviewer verified the data and assessments.ResultsWe identified one study proposing an uncommon strategy for autopsies for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. The study provided very low-certainty evidence that it reduced the risk of transmission. We identified 23 guidance documents providing practical advice on the steps of handling the bodies: preparation, packing, and others and advice related to both the handling of the dead bodies and the use of personal protective equipment by individuals handling them. We did not identify COVID-19 evidence relevant to any of these steps.ConclusionWhile a substantive number of guidance documents propose specific strategies, we identified no study providing direct evidence for the effects of any of those strategies. While this review highlights major research gaps, it allows interested entities to build their own guidance.