Understanding effect size: an international online survey among psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians from other medical specialities, dentists and other health professionals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Various ways exist to display the effectiveness of medical treatment options. This study examined various psychiatric, medical and allied professionals' understanding and perceived usefulness of eight effect size indices for presenting both dichotomous and continuous outcome data. METHODS: We surveyed 1316 participants from 13 countries using an online questionnaire. We presented hypothetical treatment effects of interventions versus placebo concerning chronic pain using eight different effect size measures. For each index, the participants had to judge the magnitude of the shown effect, to indicate how certain they felt about their own answer and how useful they found the given effect size index. FINDINGS: Overall, 762 (57.9%) participants fully completed the questionnaire. In terms of understanding, the best results emerged when both the control event rate (CER) and the experimental event rate (EER) were presented. The difference in minimal importance difference units (MID unit) was understood worst. Respondents also found CER and EER to be the most useful presentation approach while they rated MID unit as the least useful. Confidence in the risk ratio ranked high, even though it was rather poorly understood. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For dichotomous outcomes, presenting the effects in terms of the CER and EER could lead to the most correct interpretation. Relative measures including the risk ratio must be supplemented with absolute measures such as the CER and EER. Effects on continuous outcomes were better understood through standardised mean differences than mean differences. These can also be supplemented by dichotomised CER and EER.

Prophylactic cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor drugs for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in extremely preterm infants: a clinical practice guideline incorporating family values and preferences.

ImportanceProphylactic cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors (COX-Is) such as indomethacin, ibuprofen and acetaminophen may prevent morbidity and mortality in extremely preterm infants (born ≤28 weeks' gestation). However, there is controversy around which COX-I, if any, is the most effective and safest, which has resulted in considerable variability in clinical practice. Our objective was to develop rigorous and transparent clinical practice guideline recommendations for the prophylactic use of COX-I drugs for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in extremely preterm infants. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence-to-decision framework for multiple comparisons was used to develop the guideline recommendations. A 12-member panel, including 5 experienced neonatal care providers, 2 methods experts, 1 pharmacist, 2 parents of former extremely preterm infants and 2 adults born extremely preterm, was convened. A rating of the most important clinical outcomes was established a priori. Evidence from a Cochrane network meta-analysis and a cross-sectional mixed-methods study exploring family values and preferences were used as the primary sources of evidence. The panel recommended that prophylaxis with intravenous indomethacin may be considered in extremely preterm infants (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty in estimate of effects). Shared decision making with parents was encouraged to evaluate their values and preferences prior to therapy. The panel recommended against routine use of ibuprofen prophylaxis in this gestational age group (conditional recommendation, low certainty in the estimate of effects). The panel strongly recommended against use of prophylactic acetaminophen (strong recommendation, very low certainty in estimate of effects) until further research evidence is available.

Evidence-Based Practice Competencies among Nutrition Professionals and Students: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) promotes shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine EBP competencies among nutrition professionals and students reported in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by searching Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, BIOSIS Citation Index, and clinicaltrials.gov up to March 2023. Eligible primary studies had to assess one of the 6 predefined EBP competencies: formulating clinical questions; searching literature for best evidence; assessing studies for methodological quality; effect size; certainty of evidence for effects; and determining the applicability of study results considering patient values and preferences. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and results were summarized for each EBP competency. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible cross-sectional survey studies, comprising 1065 participants, primarily registered dietitians, across 6 countries, with the majority assessed in the United States (n = 470). The reporting quality of the survey studies was poor overall, with 43% of items not reported. Only 1 study (8%) explicitly used an objective questionnaire to assess EBP competencies. In general, the 6 competencies were incompletely defined or reported (e.g., it was unclear what applicability and critical appraisal referred to and what study designs were appraised by the participants). Two core competencies, interpreting effect size and certainty of evidence for effects, were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of study reports was poor, and the questionnaires were predominantly self-perceived, as opposed to objective assessments. No studies reported on competencies in interpreting effect size or certainty of evidence, competencies essential for optimizing clinical nutrition decision-making. Future surveys should objectively assess core EBP competencies using sensible, specific questionnaires. Furthermore, EBP competencies need to be standardized across dietetic programs to minimize heterogeneity in the training, understanding, evaluation, and application among dietetics practitioners. This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022311916.

Saturated fat, the estimated absolute risk and certainty of risk for mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of reducing saturated fat or fatty foods, or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes in adults. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and references of included studies for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in adults published in the past 10 years. Eligible reviews investigated reducing saturated fat or fatty foods or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using, for example, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. We assessed the quality of SRMAs using a modified version of AMSTAR-2. Results were summarized as absolute estimates of effect together with the certainty of effects using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We included 17 SRMAs (13 reviews of observational studies with follow-up 1 to 34 years; 4 reviews of RCTs with follow-up 1 to 17 years). The quality of two-thirds of the SRMAs was critically low to moderate; the main limitations included deficient reporting of study selection, absolute effect estimates, sources of funding, and a priori subgroups to explore heterogeneity. Our included reviews reported > 100 estimates of effect across 11 critically important cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes. High quality SRMAs consistently and predominantly reported low to very low certainty evidence that reducing or replacing saturated fat was associated with a very small risk reduction in cancer and cardiometabolic endpoints. The risk reductions where approximately divided, some being statistically significant and some being not statistically significant. However, based on 2 moderate to high quality reviews, we found moderate certainty evidence for a small but important effect that was statistically significant for two outcomes (total mortality events [20 fewer events per 1000 followed] and combined cardiovascular events [16 fewer per 1000 followed]). Conversely, 4 moderate to high quality reviews showed very small effects on total mortality, with 3 of these reviews showing non-statistically significant mortality effects. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews investigating the impact of SFA on mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes almost universally suggest very small absolute changes in risk, and the data is based primarily on low and very low certainty evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020172141.

Comparison of seven popular structured dietary programmes and risk of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased cardiovascular risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions). REVIEW METHODS: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: 40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016047939.

Saturated fat and human health: a protocol for a methodologically innovative systematic review and meta-analysis to inform public health nutrition guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The health effects of dietary fats are a controversial issue on which experts and authoritative organizations have often disagreed. Care providers, guideline developers, policy-makers, and researchers use systematic reviews to advise patients and members of the public on optimal dietary habits, and to formulate public health recommendations and policies. Existing reviews, however, have serious limitations that impede optimal dietary fat recommendations, such as a lack of focus on outcomes important to people, substantial risk of bias (RoB) issues, ignoring absolute estimates of effects together with comprehensive assessments of the certainty of the estimates for all outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We therefore propose a methodologically innovative systematic review using direct and indirect evidence on diet and food-based fats (i.e., reduction or replacement of saturated fat with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, or carbohydrates or protein) and the risk of important health outcomes. METHODS: We will collaborate with an experienced research librarian to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing saturated fat and our health outcomes of interest. In duplicate, we will screen, extract results from primary studies, assess their RoB, conduct de novo meta-analyses and/or network meta-analysis, assess the impact of missing outcome data on meta-analyses, present absolute effect estimates, and assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE contextualized approach. Our work will inform recommendations on saturated fat based on international standards for reporting systematic reviews and guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis will provide the most comprehensive and rigorous summary of the evidence addressing the relationship between saturated fat modification for people-important health outcomes. The evidence from this review will be used to inform public health nutrition guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42023387377 .

Evaluation of Health-Related Values and Preferences of Adults Who Were Preterm Infants and Parents of Preterm Infants Concerning Use of Prophylactic Cyclooxygenase Inhibitor Drugs.

Importance: There is wide variability in the use of prophylactic cyclooxygenase inhibitor (COX-I) drugs to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Parents of preterm infants are rarely involved in this decision-making process. Objective: To explore the health-related values and preferences of adults who were preterm infants and families of preterm infants concerning the prophylactic use of indomethacin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen initiated within the first 24 hours after birth. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used direct choice experiments conducted in 2 phases of virtual video-conferenced interviews between March 3, 2021, and February 10, 2022: (1) a pilot feasibility study and (2) a formal study of values and preferences, using a predefined convenience sample. Participants included adults born very preterm (gestational age <32 weeks) or parents of very preterm infants currently in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or having graduated from the NICU in the last 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative importance of clinical outcomes, willingness to use each of the COX-Is when presented as the only option, preference for using prophylactic hydrocortisone vs indomethacin, willingness to use any of the COX-Is when all 3 options are available, and relative importance of having family values and preferences included in decision-making. Results: Of 44 participants enrolled, 40 were included in the formal study (31 parents and 9 adults born preterm). The median gestational age of the participant or the participant's child at birth was 26.0 (IQR, 25.0-28.8) weeks. Death (median score, 100 [IQR, 100-100]) and severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (median score, 90.0 [IQR, 80.0-100]) were rated as the 2 most critical outcomes. Based on direct choice experiments, most participants were willing to consider prophylactic indomethacin (36 [90.0%]) or ibuprofen (34 [85.0%]), but not acetaminophen (4 [10.0%]) when offered as the only option. Among participants who initially chose indomethacin (n = 36), if prophylactic hydrocortisone was offered as a potential therapy with the caveat that both cannot be used simultaneously, only 12 of 36 (33.3%) preferred to remain with indomethacin. Variability in preference was noted when all 3 COX-I options were available, indomethacin (19 [47.5%]) being the most preferred option followed by ibuprofen (16 [40.0%]), while the remainder opted for no prophylaxis (5 [12.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study of former preterm infants and parents of preterm infants suggest that there was minimal variability in how participants valued the main outcomes, with death and severe IVH being rated as the 2 most important undesirable outcomes. While indomethacin was the most preferred form of prophylaxis, variability was noted in the choice of COX-I interventions when participants were presented with the benefits and harms of each drug.

Incorporation of patient and family values and preferences for health-related outcomes in paediatric obesity management: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of value and preference studies conducted in children and their caregivers related to the estimated benefits and harms of interventions for managing paediatric obesity. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline (1946-2022), Ovid Embase (1974-2022), EBSCO CINAHL (inception to 2022), Elsevier Scopus (inception to 2022), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (inception to 2022). Reports were eligible if they included: behavioural and psychological, pharmacological, or surgical interventions; participants between (or had a mean age within) 0-18 years old with overweight or obesity; systematic reviews, primary quantitative, qualitative, or mixed/multiple methods studies; and values and preferences as main study outcomes. At least two team members independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised study quality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 11 010 reports; eight met the inclusion criteria. One study directly assessed values and preferences based on hypothetical pharmacological treatment for hyperphagia in individuals with Prader-Willi Syndrome. Although not having reported on values and preferences using our a priori definitions, the remaining seven qualitative studies (n = 6 surgical; n = 1 pharmacological) explored general beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions about surgical and pharmacological interventions. No studies pertained to behavioural and psychological interventions. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to elicit the values and preferences of children and caregivers using the best available estimates of the benefits and harms for pharmacological, surgical, and behavioural and psychological interventions.

Microbiota signatures and mucosal healing in the use of enteral nutrition therapy v. corticosteroids for the treatment of children with Crohn's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Corticosteroids (CS) and exclusive and partial enteral nutrition (EEN and PEN) are effective therapies in paediatric Crohn's disease (CD). This systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies analyses the impact of EEN/PEN v. CS on intestinal microbiota, mucosal healing as well as other clinically important outcomes, including clinical remission, relapse, adherence, adverse events and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in paediatric CD. Three RCT (n 76) and sixteen cohort studies (n 1104) compared EEN v. CS. With limited available data (one RCT), the effect on intestinal microbiome indicated a trend towards EEN regarding Shannon diversity. Based on two RCT, EEN achieved higher mucosal healing than CS (risk ratio (RR) 2·36, 95 % CI (1·22, 4·57), low certainty). Compared with CS, patients on EEN were less likely to experience adverse events based on two RCT (RR 0·32, 95 % CI (0·13, 0·80), low certainty). For HRQL, there was a trend in favour of CS based on data from two published abstracts of cohort studies. Based on thirteen cohort studies, EEN achieved higher clinical remission than CS (RR 1·18, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·38), very low certainty). Studies also reported no important differences in relapse and adherence. Compared with CS, EEN may improve mucosal healing with fewer adverse events based on RCT data. While limited data indicate the need for further trials, this is the first systematic review to comprehensively summarise the data on intestinal microbiome, mucosal healing and HRQOL when comparing enteral nutrition and CS in paediatric CD.

A survey of stakeholders' perceived importance of health indicators and subgroup analyses to inform the Canadian clinical practice guideline for managing paediatric obesity.

OBJECTIVE: To assess stakeholder ratings of health indicators and subgroup analyses in systematic reviews used to update the Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline for Managing Paediatric Obesity. METHODS: Stakeholders (caregivers of children with obesity and Clinical Practice Guideline Steering Committee members) completed an online survey between April 2020 and March 2021. Participants rated importance of health indicators and subgroup analyses for behavioural and psychological, pharmacotherapeutic, and surgical interventions for managing paediatric obesity from not important to critically important using Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: No health indicators or subgroup analyses were rated not important by the 30 caregivers and 17 Steering Committee members. Across intervention types, stakeholders rated anxiety, depression, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, plus age and weight status subgroups as critically important. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder ratings will inform data reporting and interpretation to update Canada's Clinical Practice Guideline for Managing Paediatric Obesity.

Serious reporting deficiencies exist in minimal important difference studies: current state and suggestions for improvement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reporting of minimal important difference (MID) estimates using anchor-based methods for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the association with reporting deficiencies on their credibility. METHODS: Systematic survey of primary studies empirically estimating MIDs. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database until October 2018. We evaluated study reporting, focusing on participants' demographics, intervention(s), characteristics of PROMs and anchors, and MID estimation method(s). We assessed the impact of reporting issues on credibility of MID estimates. RESULTS: In 585 studies reporting on 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs, authors frequently failed to adequately report key characteristics of PROMs and MIDs, including minimum and maximum values of PROM scale, measure of variability accompanying the MID estimate and number of participants included in the MID calculation. Across MID estimates (n = 5,324), the most serious reporting issues impacting credibility included infrequent reporting of the correlation between the anchor and PROM (66%), inadequate details to judge precision of MID point estimate (13%), and insufficient information about the threshold used to ascertain MIDs (16%). CONCLUSION: Serious issues of incomplete reporting in the MID literature threaten the optimal use of MID estimates to inform the magnitude of effects of interventions on PROMs.

Causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies is often inconsistent with intent: a systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: We systematically evaluated causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies and explored the relation between language use and the intent of the investigation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Epistemonikos. We randomly selected 199 reviews published in 2019, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by use and nonuse of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rating quality of evidence. RESULTS: Of 199 reviews of observational studies 56.8% had causal intent. Reviews with causal intent were more likely to investigate therapeutic clinical intervention (33.6% vs. 12.8%). Although 78.8% of those with causal intent used causal language in one or more sections of the title, abstract, or main text, only 4.4% consistently used causal language throughout the manuscript, and 21.2% did not use causal language at all. Of reviews without causal intent, 51.2% used causal language somewhere in the manuscript. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of observational studies sometimes do and sometimes do not have causal intent. Both those are inconsistent in causal language use and often use language inconsistent with the intent. Journal policies would better serve clarity of thinking and appropriateness of inferences by demanding authors clearly specify their intent and consistently use language consistent with that intent.

Prophylactic cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor drugs for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Cyclooxygenase inhibitors (COX-I) may prevent PDA-related complications. Controversy exists on which COX-I drug is the most effective and has the best safety profile in preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic COX-I drugs and 'no COXI prophylaxis' in preterm infants using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). SEARCH METHODS: Searches of Cochrane CENTRAL via Wiley, OVID MEDLINE and Embase via Elsevier were conducted on 9 December 2021. We conducted independent searches of clinical trial registries and conference abstracts; and scanned the reference lists of included trials and related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled preterm or low birth weight infants within the first 72 hours of birth without a prior clinical or echocardiographic diagnosis of PDA and compared prophylactic administration of indomethacin or ibuprofen or acetaminophen versus each other, placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE NMA approach to assess the certainty of evidence derived from the NMA for the following outcomes: severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), mortality, surgical or interventional PDA closure, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), gastrointestinal perforation, chronic lung disease (CLD) and cerebral palsy (CP). MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs (3999 preterm infants). Nineteen RCTs (n = 2877) compared prophylactic indomethacin versus placebo/no treatment, 7 RCTs (n = 914) compared prophylactic ibuprofen versus placebo/no treatment and 2 RCTs (n = 208) compared prophylactic acetaminophen versus placebo/no treatment. Nine RCTs were judged to have high risk of bias in one or more domains.We identified two ongoing trials on prophylactic acetaminophen. Bayesian random-effects NMA demonstrated that prophylactic indomethacin probably led to a small reduction in severe IVH (network RR 0.66, 95% Credible Intervals [CrI] 0.49 to 0.87; absolute risk difference [ARD] 43 fewer [95% CrI, 65 fewer to 16 fewer] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-3; moderate-certainty), a moderate reduction in mortality (network RR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.64 to 1.1; ARD 24 fewer [95% CrI, 58 fewer to 16 more] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-4; moderate-certainty) and surgical PDA closure (network RR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.14 to 0.66; ARD 52 fewer [95% CrI, 75 fewer to 30 fewer] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-2; moderate-certainty) compared to placebo. Prophylactic indomethacin resulted in trivial difference in NEC (network RR 0.76, 95% CrI 0.35 to 1.2; ARD 16 fewer [95% CrI, 42 fewer to 13 more] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-3; high-certainty), gastrointestinal perforation (network RR 0.92, 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.9; ARD 4 fewer [95% CrI, 42 fewer to 137 more] per 1000; median rank 1, 95% CrI 1-3; moderate-certainty) or CP (network RR 0.97, 95% CrI 0.44 to 2.1; ARD 3 fewer [95% CrI, 62 fewer to 121 more] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-3; low-certainty) and may result in a small increase in CLD (network RR 1.10, 95% CrI 0.93 to 1.3; ARD 36 more [95% CrI, 25 fewer to 108 more] per 1000; median rank 3, 95% CrI 1-3; low-certainty). Prophylactic ibuprofen probably led to a small reduction in severe IVH (network RR 0.69, 95% CrI 0.41 to 1.14; ARD 39 fewer [95% CrI, 75 fewer to 18 more] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-4; moderate-certainty) and moderate reduction in surgical PDA closure (network RR 0.24, 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.64; ARD 66 fewer [95% CrI, from 82 fewer to 31 fewer] per 1000; median rank 1, 95% CrI 1-2; moderate-certainty) compared to placebo. Prophylactic ibuprofen may result in moderate reduction in mortality (network RR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.57 to 1.2; ARD 27 fewer [95% CrI, from 69 fewer to 32 more] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-4; low-certainty) and leads to trivial difference in NEC (network RR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.31 to 1.4; ARD 18 fewer [95% CrI, from 45 fewer to 26 more] per 1000; median rank 1, 95% CrI 1-3; high-certainty), or CLD (network RR 1.00, 95% CrI 0.83 to 1.3; ARD 0 fewer [95% CrI, from 61 fewer to 108 more] per 1000; median rank 2, 95% CrI 1-3; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain on effect of ibuprofen on gastrointestinal perforation (network RR 2.6, 95% CrI 0.42 to 20.0; ARD 76 more [95% CrI, from 27 fewer to 897 more] per 1000; median rank 3, 95% CrI 1-3; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of prophylactic acetaminophen on severe IVH (network RR 1.17, 95% CrI 0.04 to 55.2; ARD 22 more [95% CrI, from 122 fewer to 1000 more] per 1000; median rank 4, 95% CrI 1-4; very low-certainty), mortality (network RR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.16 to 1.4; ARD 82 fewer [95% CrI, from 135 fewer to 64 more] per 1000; median rank 1, 95% CrI 1-4; very low-certainty), or CP (network RR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.01 to 6.3; ARD 70 fewer [95% CrI, from 109 fewer to 583 more] per 1000; median rank 1, 95% CrI 1-3; very low-certainty). In summary, based on ranking statistics, both indomethacin and ibuprofen were equally effective (median ranks 2 respectively) in reducing severe IVH and mortality. Ibuprofen (median rank 1) was more effective than indomethacin in reducing surgical PDA ligation (median rank 2). However, no statistically-significant differences were observed between the COX-I drugs for any of the relevant outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic indomethacin probably results in a small reduction in severe IVH and moderate reduction in mortality and surgical PDA closure (moderate-certainty), may result in a small increase in CLD (low-certainty) and results in trivial differences in NEC (high-certainty), gastrointestinal perforation (moderate-certainty) and cerebral palsy (low-certainty). Prophylactic ibuprofen probably results in a small reduction in severe IVH and moderate reduction in surgical PDA closure (moderate-certainty), may result in a moderate reduction in mortality (low-certainty) and trivial differences in CLD (low-certainty) and NEC (high-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of acetaminophen on any of the clinically-relevant outcomes.

Values and preferences influencing willingness to change red and processed meat consumption in response to evidence-based information: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) to assess the extent to which omnivores are willing to stop or reduce their consumption of red and processed meat in response to evidence-based information regarding the possible reduction of cancer mortality and incidence achieved by dietary modification; (2) to identify sociodemographic categories associated with higher willingness to change meat consumption; (3) to understand the motives facilitating and hindering such a change. DESIGN: During an initial computer-assisted web interview, respondents were presented with scenarios containing the estimates of the absolute risk reduction in overall cancer incidence and mortality tailored to their declared level of red and processed meat consumption. Respondents were asked whether they would stop or reduce their average meat consumption based on the information provided. Their dietary choices were assessed at 6-month follow-up. Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews to better understand the rationale for dietary practices and the perception of health information. PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted among students and staff of 3 universities in Krakow, Poland. RESULTS: Most of the 513 respondents were unwilling to change their consumption habits. We found gender to be a significant predictor of the willingness. Finally, we identified 4 themes reflecting key motives that determined meat consumption preferences: the importance of taste and texture, health consciousness, the habitual nature of cooking, and persistence of omnivorous habits. CONCLUSIONS: When faced with health information about the uncertain reduction in the risk of cancer mortality and incidence, the vast majority of study participants were unwilling to introduce changes in their consumption habits.

Updating the Canadian clinical practice guideline for managing pediatric obesity: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: Since the first national guideline for managing obesity in adults and children in Canada was published in 2007, new evidence has emerged and guideline standards have evolved. Our purpose is to describe the protocol used to update the Canadian clinical practice guideline for managing pediatric obesity. METHODS: This guideline will update the pediatric components of the 2007 Canadian clinical practice guideline for the management of obesity. In partnership with Obesity Canada, we began preliminary work in 2019; activities are scheduled for completion in 2022. The guideline will follow standards developed by the National Academy of Medicine and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. Guideline development will be informed by 5 complementary literature reviews: a scoping review that focuses on clinical assessment in pediatric obesity management and 4 systematic reviews to synthesize evidence regarding families' values and preferences as well as the safety and effectiveness of interventions (psychological and behavioural; pharmacotherapeutic; and surgical). We will use standard systematic review methodology, including summarizing and assessing the certainty of evidence and determining the strength of recommendations. Competing interests will be managed proactively according to recommendations from the Guidelines International Network. Diverse stakeholders, including families and clinicians, will be engaged throughout guideline development. INTERPRETATION: The guideline will support Canadian families and clinicians to make informed, value-sensitive and evidence-based clinical decisions related to managing pediatric obesity. The guideline and accompanying resources for end-users will be published in English and French, and we will partner with Obesity Canada to optimize dissemination using integrated and end-of-project knowledge translation.

Food-based dietary guidelines in Spain: an assessment of their methodological quality.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) have been developed to promote healthy diets and prevent chronic diseases. However, the methodological quality of Spanish FBDGs has not been systematically assessed yet. The objective of this review is to identify and assess the methodological quality of Spanish FBDGs, as well as to describe their food guides and key recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to identify Spanish FBDGs targeted at the general population using multiple sources. Two authors independently screened the references, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the FBDGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX) instruments. We performed a descriptive analysis of the FBDGs. RESULTS: We included 19 FBDGs, published between 2007 and 2019. The median scores for each AGREE II domain were: "scope and purpose" 44% (Q1-Q3: 33-61%); "Stakeholder involvement" 31% (11-44%), "rigor of development" 3% (1-14%); "clarity of presentation" 42% (33-47%), "applicability" 0% (0-6%); and "editorial independence" 0% (0-8%). Six FBDGs (32%; 6/19) were categorized as "recommended with modifications", and the rest (68%; 13/19) as "not recommended". None of the FBDGs scored ≥60% in three or more domains, including the "rigor of development" domain. FBDGs indexed in literature databases scored significantly higher in overall rating than those not indexed (P = 0.023). The majority of FBDGs (74%; 14/19) used the pyramid as a food guide representation with a larger number of food levels (3-7 levels). The majority of FBDGs recommended a daily intake of cereals and grains, vegetables, fruits, olive oil and dairy products; a weekly intake of vegetable and animal proteins; and the occasional and limited intake of other food groups (e.g., ultraprocessed foods). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the methodological quality of FBDGs is poor showing that only 32% of FBDGs are "recommended for use with modifications". Our results highlight the need to revise, systematize and improve FBDG development processes in Spain.

Are systematic reviews addressing nutrition for cancer prevention trustworthy? A systematic survey of quality and risk of bias.

CONTEXT: The last 30 years have yielded a vast number of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses addressing the link between nutrition and cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this survey was to assess overall quality and potential for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) that examined the role of nutrition in cancer prevention. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched (last search performed November 2018). STUDY SELECTION: Studies identified as SRMAs that investigated a nutritional or dietary intervention or exposure for cancer prevention in the general population or in people at risk of cancer and in which primary studies had a comparison group were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Altogether, 101 studies were randomly selected for analysis. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. RESULTS: Most SRMAs included observational studies. Less than 10% of SRMAs reported a study protocol, and only 51% of SRMAs assessed the risk of bias in primary studies. Most studies conducted subgroup analyses, but only a few reported tests of interaction or specified subgroups of interest a priori. Overall, according to AMSTAR-2, only 1% of SRMAs were of high quality, while 97% were of critically low quality. Only 3% had a low risk of bias, according to ROBIS. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic survey revealed substantial limitations with respect to quality and risk of bias of SRMAs. SRMAs examining nutrition and cancer prevention cannot be considered trustworthy, and results should be interpreted with caution. Peer reviewers as well as users of SRMAs should be advised to use the AMSTAR-2 and/or ROBIS instruments to help to determine the overall quality and risk of bias of SRMAs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42019121116.

People's Values and Preferences about Meat Consumption in View of the Potential Environmental Impacts of Meat: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Health is not the only aspect people consider when choosing to consume meat; environmental concerns about the impact of meat (production and distribution) can influence people's meat choices. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review, searched six databases from inception to June 2020, and synthesised our findings into narrative forms. We integrated the evidence from quantitative and qualitative data sets into joint displays and assessed the confidence in the evidence for each review finding following the GRADE-CERQual approach. RESULTS: Of the 23,531 initial records, we included 70 studies: 56 quantitative, 12 qualitative, and 2 mixed-methods studies. We identified four main themes: (1) reasons for eating meat; (2) reasons for avoiding meat; (3) willingness to change meat consumption; and (4) willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. The overall confidence was low for the reasons for eating and/or buying meat, for avoiding meat, and for willingness to change meat consumption, and was moderate for willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of people's general beliefs about meat and its impact on the environment, most people may be unwilling to change their meat consumption. Future research should address the current limitations of the research evidence to assess whether people are willing to make a change when properly informed.

Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: In addition to social and environmental determinants, people's values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults' values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the face of possible undesirable health consequences. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study including a quantitative assessment through an online survey, a qualitative inquiry through semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up assessment through a telephone survey. We performed descriptive statistics, logistic regressions, and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 304 participants, over 75% were unwilling to stop their consumption of either URM or PM, and of those unwilling to stop, over 80% were also unwilling to reduce. Men were less likely to stop meat intake than women (odds ratios < 0.4). From the semi-structured interviews, we identified three main themes: the social and/or family context of meat consumption, health- and non-health-related concerns about meat, and uncertainty of the evidence. At three months, 63% of participants reported no changes in meat intake. CONCLUSIONS: When informed about the cancer incidence and mortality risks of meat consumption, most respondents would not reduce their intake. Public health and clinical nutrition guidelines should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with population values and preferences.

Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews.

BACKGROUND: AMSTAR-2 ('A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2') and ROBIS ('Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews') are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. METHODS: We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). RESULTS: We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet's agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers' conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. CONCLUSIONS: Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users' wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.