[Evidence synthesis for COVID-19 interventions: update reports from Argentina's National Commission for Health Technology AssessmentSíntese de evidências para intervenções em COVID-19: relatórios de atualização da Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde da Argentina]. / Síntesis de evidencia para intervenciones en COVID-19: informes de actualización de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías de Salud de Argentina.

This report presents the work done on the design, publication, and impact of updates on evidence-based COVID-19 interventions, in order to support decision-making with updated evidence syntheses based on living systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. To this end, a specific working group was created within the National Commission for Health Technology Assessment (CONETEC) of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, in collaboration with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). A methodology was designed to develop and publish assessment documents aimed at supporting decision-making. These update reports were based on the exploration of three areas: health effects, feasibility of implementation, and evidence-based recommendations. A color-coded system was used to present the conclusions according to the balance between their positive and negative effects in different clinical scenarios, in order to improve their interpretation and implementation. In 2021, 16 evidence synthesis reports were published (13 original reports and three full updates). These were downloaded many times from the CONETEC website and the Regional Database of Health Technology Assessment Reports of the Americas (BRISA), highlighting the need for robust, up-to-date, reliable evidence summaries adapted for implementation in the country's health system. Other challenges include constant updating of information, appropriate dissemination, and sustained rigorous preparation of the reports.

Este relatório tem como objetivo apresentar o trabalho realizado sobre o delineamento, publicação e impacto das atualizações para intervenções em COVID-19 baseadas em evidências, que visam fornecer sínteses de evidências atualizadas provenientes de revisões sistemáticas vivas sobre intervenções terapêuticas para apoiar a tomada de decisões. Para isso, foi criado um grupo de trabalho específico no âmbito da Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias de Saúde (CONETEC, na sigla em espanhol), do Ministério da Saúde da Argentina, em parceria com a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS). Foi desenhada uma metodologia para a elaboração e publicação de documentos de avaliação destinados a apoiar a tomada de decisões. Esses relatórios de atualização se basearam na exploração de três domínios: efeitos na saúde, viabilidade da implementação e recomendações baseadas em evidências. As conclusões foram adaptadas a uma escala semafórica de acordo com o equilíbrio entre os benefícios e os aspectos negativos para os diferentes cenários clínicos, de forma a melhorar a sua interpretação e aplicação. Durante o ano de 2021, foram publicados 16 relatórios de síntese de evidências (13 originais e 3 atualizações completas), que receberam um número significativo de consultas no site da CONETEC e da Base Regional de Informes de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde das Américas (BRISA). Assim, tornou-se visível a necessidade de contar com resumos de evidências robustos, atualizados e confiáveis adaptados ao contexto de aplicação no sistema de saúde do país. A atualização constante das informações, sua divulgação adequada e a manutenção do rigor na elaboração dos relatórios também apresentam desafios.

School closures during COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and drawbacks of school closures and in-school mitigations during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews (SRs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched six databases and additional resources on 29 July 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, COVID-END inventory of evidence synthesis, and Epistemonikos. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We selected SRs written in English that answered at least one of four specific questions concerning the efficacy and drawbacks of school closures. Their primary studies were conducted in primary and secondary schools, including pupils aged 5-18. Interventions included school closures or mitigations (such as mask usage) introduced in schools. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used AMSTAR 2 to assess confidence in the included SRs, and GRADE was used to assess certainty of evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis of the results, prioritising higher-quality SRs, those which performed GRADE assessments and those with more unique primary studies. We also assessed the overlap between primary studies included in the SRs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our framework for summarising outcome data was guided by the following questions: (1) What is the impact of school closures on COVID-19 transmission, morbidity or mortality in the community? (2) What is the impact of COVID-19 school closures on mental health (eg, anxiety), physical health (eg, obesity, domestic violence, sleep) and learning/achievement of primary and secondary pupils? (3) What is the impact of mitigations in schools on COVID-19 transmission, morbidity or mortality in the community? and (4) What is the impact of COVID-19 mitigations in schools on mental health, physical health and learning/achievement of primary and secondary pupils? RESULTS: We identified 578 reports, 26 of which were included. One SR was of high confidence, 0 moderate, 10 low and 15 critically low confidence. We identified 132 unique primary studies on the effects of school closures on transmission/morbidity/mortality, 123 on learning, 164 on mental health, 22 on physical health, 16 on sleep, 7 on domestic violence and 69 on effects of in-school mitigations on transmission/morbidity/mortality.Both school closures and in-school mitigations were associated with reduced COVID-19 transmission, morbidity and mortality in the community. School closures were also associated with reduced learning, increased anxiety and increased obesity in pupils. We found no SRs that assessed potential drawbacks of in-school mitigations on pupils. The certainty of evidence according to GRADE was mostly very low. CONCLUSIONS: School closures during COVID-19 had both positive and negative impacts. We found a large number of SRs and primary studies. However, confidence in the SRs was mostly low to very low, and the certainty of evidence was also mostly very low. We found no SRs assessing the potential drawbacks of in-school mitigations on children, which could be addressed moving forward. This overview provides evidence that could inform policy makers on school closures during future potential waves of COVID-19.

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an increasingly common approach to keeping reviews up to date, in which new relevant studies are incorporated as they become available, so as to inform healthcare policy and practice in a timely manner. While journal publishers have been exploring the publication of LSRs using different updating and publishing approaches, readers cannot currently assess if the evidence underpinning a published LSR is up to date, as neither the search details, the selection process, nor the list of identified studies is made available between the publication of updates. We describe a new method to transparently report the living evidence surveillance process that occurs between published LSR versions. We use the example of the living Cochrane Review on nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir (Paxlovid) for preventing and treating COVID-19 to illustrate how this can work in practice. We created a publicly accessible spreadsheet on the Open Science Framework platform, linking to the living Cochrane Review, that details the search and study selection process, enabling readers to track the progress of eligible ongoing or completed studies. Further automation of the evidence surveillance process should be explored.

Comparison of telecardiac rehabilitation with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation and usual care: a protocol for systematic review including a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac diseases are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Cardiac rehabilitation is proven to be beneficial in reducing morbidity, mortality and rehospitalisation rates. Recently, more emphasis is given to home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation due to the recent pandemic of SARS-CoV-2. We plan to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the differences in functional capacity (FC) (measured in peak oxygen uptake (PVO2)) and health-related quality of life (hr-QoL) between telecardiac rehabilitation and both centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) and usual care (UC) separately. It will showcase the feasibility of using telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation as an alternative to CBCR considering the ease of performance, safety and limiting unnecessary contact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was structured according to the published Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-Protocol guidelines. We will devise a search strategy to use online databases to search for the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Inclusion criteria will include adult population (18 years or older) suffering from at least one cardiac disease referred for cardiac rehabilitation comparing telecardiac rehabilitation with both CBCR and UC. Exclusion criteria will be RCTs in non-English language, hybrid studies, cross-over trials, observational studies and case series. The outcome of interest will be FC measured in PVO2 and hr-QoL. The articles will be reviewed by two independent reviewers and a third reviewer will be available to adjudicate any conflicts. The bias in the selected studies will be assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The overall bias of the studies will be assessed. The selected articles will be reviewed and the data will be collected on Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis. These data will include number of subjects in the intervention arm and the comparator arm (which will either be CBCR or UC), measures of FC and hr-QoL and SD. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be considered based on heterogeneity among the study effect estimates and the number of available studies for each outcome. Results of the pooled estimates will be reported as standardised mean difference (and 95% CI) with fixed-effect model, if heterogeneity is not significant (I2 <50%). Otherwise, random-effects model will be used for I2 >50%. The data of the subjects who completed the rehabilitation programme of the study period will be used to calculate the effect estimates (per-protocol effect). Publication bias in the meta-analysis will be assessed using Egger's test and funnel plot. The strength of body of evidence of the outcomes will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Data analysis will be performed using Stata SE V.15.0 (College Station, Texas, USA). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There will be no direct involvement of the patient or the public in the conception, design, data collection, and analysis of this systematic review and meta-analysis. Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated via journal articles. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021245461.

Escalating incidence of infective endocarditis in Europe in the 21st century.

AIM: To provide a contemporary analysis of incidence trends of infective endocarditis (IE) with its changing epidemiology over the past two decades in Europe. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 November 2020. All studies were independently reviewed by four referees and those that included a population-based incidence of IE in patients, irrespective of age, in Europe were included. Least squares regression was used to estimate pooled temporal trends in IE incidence. RESULTS: Of 9138 articles screened, 18 studies were included in the review. Elderly men predominated in all studies. IE incidence increased 4.1% per year (95% CI 1.8% to 6.4%) in the pooled regression analysis of eight studies that included comprehensive and consistent trends data. When trends data were weighted according to population size of individual countries, an increase in yearly incidence of 0.27 cases per 100 000 people was observed. Staphylococci and streptococci were the most common pathogens identified. The rate of surgical intervention ranged from 10.2% to 60.0%, and the rate of inpatient mortality ranged from 14.3% to 17.5%. In six studies that examined the rate of injection drug use, five of them reported a rate of less than 10%. CONCLUSION: Based on findings from our systematic review, IE incidence in Europe has doubled over the past two decades in Europe. Multiple factors are likely responsible for this striking increase. TRIAL REGISTERATION NUMBER: CRD42020191196.

Search is a verb: systematic review searching as invisible labor.

Invisible labor is a term used by labor economists to describe work that contributes, and is often even necessary, to the economy but largely goes unrecognized and unpaid. Despite the fact that systematic review searching is a significant task for many librarians and knowledge professionals, the search process can be considered a form of invisible labor because it often goes without recognition. This occurs sometimes through not granting authorship to the librarian who performed the intellectual contribution of search development and sometimes through a devaluing of the search process by the choice of language used to describe the search. By using the term search as a passive verb or noun, authors devalue the real intellectual labor involved in searching, which includes decisions related to search terms and combinations, database selection, and other search parameters. This commentary explores the context of how searching is described through the concept of invisible labor.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes related to COVID-19 and pregnancy: An overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pregnancy has rapidly increased since December 2019, making it difficult to make rigorous evidence-based decisions. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence on prognosis of COVID-19 in pregnant women. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform for COVID-19, which continually retrieves studies from 46 data sources (including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, other electronic databases, clinical trials registries, and preprint repositories, among other sources relevant to COVID-19), mapping them into PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) questions. The search covered the period from the inception date of each database to 13 September 2020. We included systematic reviews assessing outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 and/or their newborns. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, assessed full texts to select the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias of each included systematic review. We measured the overlap of primary studies included among the selected systematic reviews by building a matrix of evidence, calculating the corrected covered area, and assessing the level of overlap for every pair of systematic reviews. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1132 references. 52 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria and were included in this overview. Only one review had a low risk of bias, three had an unclear risk of bias, and 48 had a high risk of bias. Most of the included reviews were highly overlapped among each other. In the included reviews, rates of maternal death varied from 0% to 11.1%, admission to intensive care from 2.1% to 28.5%, preterm deliveries before 37 weeks from 14.3% to 61.2%, and cesarean delivery from 48.3% to 100%. Regarding neonatal outcomes, neonatal death varied from 0% to 11.7% and the estimated infection status of the newborn varied between 0% and 11.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Only one of 52 systematic reviews had a low risk of bias. Results were heterogeneous and the overlap of primary studies was frequently very high between pairs of systematic reviews. High-quality evidence syntheses of comparative studies are needed to guide future clinical decisions.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality of patients with STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, hospitals reported declining numbers of patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), indicating that the pandemic might keep patients from seeking urgent medical treatment. However, data on outcomes and mortality rates are inconsistent between studies. METHODS: A literature search and meta-analysis were performed on studies reporting the mortality of patients with STEMI admitted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Additionally, prehospital and intrahospital delay times were evaluated. RESULTS: Outcomes of a total of 50 123 patients from 10 studies were assessed. Our study revealed that, despite a significant reduction in overall admission rates of patients with STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic (incidence rate ratio=0.789, 95% CI 0.730 to 0.852, I2=77%, p<0.01), there was no significant difference in hospital mortality (OR=1.178, 95% CI 0.926 to 1.498, I2=57%, p=0.01) compared with patients with STEMI admitted before the outbreak. Time from the onset of symptoms to first medical contact was similar (mean difference (MD)=33.4 min, 95% CI -10.2 to 77.1, I2=88%, p<0.01) while door-to-balloon time was significantly prolonged in those presenting during the pandemic (MD=7.3 min, 95% CI 3.0 to 11.7, I2=95%, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: The significant reduction in admission of patients with STEMI was not associated with a significant increase of hospital mortality rates. The causes for reduced incidence rates remain speculative. However, the analysed data indicate that acute and timely medical care of these patients has been maintained during the pandemic in most countries. Long-term data on mortality have yet to be determined.