Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Cánulas nasales de alto flujo para la asistencia respiratoria en pacientes adultos de cuidados intensivos / High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patient

No disponible

Systemic interventions for treatment of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome are rare, severe cutaneous adverse reactions usually triggered by medications. In addition to tertiary-level supportive care, various systemic therapies have been used including glucocorticoids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs), cyclosporin, N-acetylcysteine, thalidomide, infliximab, etanercept, and plasmapheresis. There is an unmet need to understand the efficacy of these interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic therapies (medicines delivered orally, intramuscularly, or intravenously) for the treatment of SJS, TEN, and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to March 2021: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five clinical trial registers, the reference lists of all included studies and of key review articles, and a number of drug manufacturer websites. We searched for errata or retractions of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational comparative studies of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of SJS, TEN, or SJS/TEN overlap syndrome. We included all systemic therapies studied to date and permitted comparisons between each therapy, as well as between therapy and placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were SJS/TEN-specific mortality and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of SJS/TEN therapy. Secondary outcomes included time to complete re-epithelialisation, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, illness sequelae, and other adverse effects attributed to systemic therapy. We rated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with a total of 308 participants (131 males and 155 females) from seven countries. We included two studies in the quantitative meta-analysis. We included three RCTs and six prospective, controlled observational studies. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 91. Most studies did not report study duration or time to follow-up. Two studies reported a mean SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 3 and 1.9. Seven studies did not report SCORTEN, although four of these studies reported average or ranges of body surface area (BSA) (means ranging from 44% to 51%). Two studies were set in burns units, two in dermatology wards, one in an intensive care unit, one in a paediatric ward, and three in unspecified inpatient units. Seven studies reported a mean age, which ranged from 29 to 56 years. Two studies included paediatric participants (23 children). We assessed the results from one of three RCTs as low risk of bias in all domains, one as high, and one as some concerns. We judged the results from all six prospective observational comparative studies to be at a high risk of bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of serious risk of bias concerns and for imprecision due to small numbers of participants. The interventions assessed included systemic corticosteroids, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, cyclosporin, thalidomide, N-acetylcysteine, IVIG, and supportive care. No data were available for the main comparisons of interest as specified in the review protocol: etanercept versus cyclosporin, etanercept versus IVIG, IVIG versus supportive care, IVIG versus cyclosporin, and cyclosporin versus corticosteroids. Corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids It is uncertain if there is any difference between corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 4 mg/kg/day for two more days after fever had subsided and no new lesions had developed) and no corticosteroids on disease-specific mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 9.03; 2 studies; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. IVIG versus no IVIG It is uncertain if there is any difference between IVIG (0.2 to 0.5 g/kg cumulative dose over three days) and no IVIG in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.91); time to complete re-epithelialisation (mean difference (MD) -2.93 days, 95% CI -4.4 to -1.46); or length of hospital stay (MD -2.00 days, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.81). All results in this comparison were based on one study with 36 participants, and very low-certainty evidence. Adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. Etanercept (TNF-alpha inhibitor) versus corticosteroids Etanercept (25 mg (50 mg if weight > 65 kg) twice weekly "until skin lesions healed") may reduce disease-specific mortality compared to corticosteroids (intravenous prednisolone 1 to 1.5 mg/kg/day "until skin lesions healed") (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.63; 1 study; 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the CIs were consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Serious adverse events, such as sepsis and respiratory failure, were reported in 5 of 48 participants with etanercept and 9 of 43 participants with corticosteroids, but it was not clear if they led to discontinuation of therapy. Time to complete re-epithelialisation and length of hospital stay were not reported. Cyclosporin versus IVIG  It is uncertain if there is any difference between cyclosporin (3 mg/kg/day or intravenous 1 mg/kg/day until complete re-epithelialisation, then tapered off (10 mg/day reduction every 48 hours)) and IVIG (continuous infusion 0.75 g/kg/day for 4 days (total dose 3 g/kg) in participants with normal renal function) in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98, 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. No studies measured intensive care unit length of stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to corticosteroids, etanercept may result in mortality reduction. For the following comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for disease-specific mortality is very low: corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids,  IVIG versus no IVIG and cyclosporin versus IVIG. There is a need for more multicentric studies, focused on the most important clinical comparisons, to provide reliable answers about the best treatments for SJS/TEN.

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

Antenatal corticosteroids prior to planned caesarean at term for improving neonatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Infants born at term by elective caesarean section are more likely to develop respiratory morbidity than infants born vaginally. Prophylactic corticosteroids in singleton preterm pregnancies accelerate lung maturation and reduce the incidence of respiratory complications. It is unclear whether administration at term gestations, prior to caesarean section, improves the respiratory outcomes for these babies without causing any unnecessary morbidity to the mother or the infant. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effect of prophylactic corticosteroid administration before elective caesarean section at term, as compared to usual care (which could be placebo or no treatment), on fetal, neonatal and maternal morbidity. We also assessed the impact of the treatment on the child in later life. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov (20 January 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic antenatal corticosteroid administration (betamethasone or dexamethasone) with placebo or with no treatment, given before elective caesarean section at term (at or after 37 weeks of gestation). Quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials were also eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, evaluated trustworthiness (based on predefined criteria developed by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth), extracted data and checked them for accuracy and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnoea of the neonate (TTN), admission to neonatal special care for respiratory morbidity and need for mechanical ventilation. We planned to perform subgroup analyses for the primary outcomes according to gestational age at randomisation and type of corticosteroid (betamethasone or dexamethasone). We also planned to perform sensitivity analysis, including only studies at low risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial in which participants were randomised to receive either betamethasone or usual care. The trial included 942 women and 942 neonates recruited from 10 UK hospitals between 1995 and 2002. This review includes only trials that met predefined criteria for trustworthiness. We removed three trials from the analysis that were included in the previous version of this review. The risk of bias was low for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. The risk of bias for selective outcome reporting was unclear because there was no published trial protocol, and therefore it is unclear whether all the planned outcomes were reported in full. Due to a lack of blinding we judged there to be high risk of performance bias and detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of concerns about risk of bias and because of imprecision due to low event rates and wide 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which are consistent with possible benefit and possible harm Compared with usual care, it is uncertain if antenatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of RDS (relative risk (RR) 0.34 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65; 1 study; 942 infants) or TTN (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11; 1 study; 938 infants) because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CIs are consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Antenatal corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of admission to neonatal special care for respiratory complications, compared with usual care (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.90; 1 study; 942 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of infants admitted to neonatal special care for respiratory morbidity after treatment with antenatal corticosteroids was 2.3% compared with 5.1% in the usual care group. It is uncertain if antenatal steroids have any effect on the risk of needing mechanical ventilation, compared with usual care (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.27; 1 study; 942 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of antenatal corticosteroids on the maternal development of postpartum infection/pyrexia in the first 72 hours is unclear due to the very low certainty of the evidence; one study (942 women) reported zero cases. The included studies did not report any data for neonatal hypoglycaemia or maternal mortality/severe mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from one randomised controlled trial suggests that prophylactic corticosteroids before elective caesarean section at term probably reduces admission to the neonatal intensive care unit for respiratory morbidity. It is uncertain if administration of antenatal corticosteroids reduces the rates of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) or transient tachypnoea of the neonate (TTN). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes was found to be low or very low, apart from the outcome of admission to neonatal special care (all levels) for respiratory morbidity, for which the evidence was of moderate certainty. Therefore, there is currently insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.  More evidence is needed to investigate the effect of prophylactic antenatal corticosteroids on the incidence of recognised respiratory morbidity such as RDS. Any future trials should assess the balance between respiratory benefit and potential immediate adverse effects (e.g. hypoglycaemia) and long-term adverse effects (e.g. academic performance) for the infant. There is very limited information on maternal health outcomes to provide any assurances that corticosteroids do not pose any increased risk of harm to the mother.  Further research should consider investigating the effectiveness of antenatal steroids at different gestational ages prior to caesarean section. There are nine potentially eligible studies that are currently ongoing and could be included in future updates of this review.

Identifying priority review questions for Cochrane Eyes and Vision: protocol for a priority setting exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10-15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO2/FiO2 may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.

ANTECEDENTES: Las cánulas nasales de alto flujo (HFNC) administran flujos elevados de una mezcla humedecida de aire y oxígeno a través de cánulas nasales de gran calibre y pueden ser útiles para proporcionar asistencia respiratoria a los adultos que presentan insuficiencia respiratoria aguda, o que tienen riesgo de presentarla, en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Esta es una actualización de una versión anterior de la revisión. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia de las HFNC en comparación con la oxigenoterapia estándar, o la ventilación no invasiva (VNI) o la ventilación con presión positiva no invasiva (VPPNI), para la asistencia respiratoria de adultos en la UCI. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science y en el Registro Cochrane de covid­19 (17 de abril de 2020), registros de ensayos clínicos (6 de abril de 2020) y se realizaron búsquedas de citas prospectivas y retrospectivas. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los estudios controlados aleatorizados (ECA) con un diseño de grupos paralelos o cruzados que compararon el uso de HFNC versus otro tipo de asistencia respiratoria no invasiva (oxigenoterapia estándar a través de cánulas nasales o mascarilla; o VNI o VPPNI que incluía la presión positiva continua en las vías respiratorias y la presión positiva de dos niveles en las vías respiratorias) en adultos ingresados en la UCI. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los procedimientos metodológicos estándar previstos por la Colaboración Cochrane. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 31 estudios (22 de grupos paralelos y nueve de diseño cruzado) con 5136 participantes; esta actualización incluyó 20 estudios nuevos. Veintiún estudios compararon la HFNC con la oxigenoterapia estándar, y 13 compararon la HFNC con la VNI o la VPPNI; tres estudios incluyeron ambas comparaciones. Se encontraron 51 estudios en curso (con una estimación de 12 807 participantes) y 19 estudios en espera de clasificación en los que no fue posible determinar la información de elegibilidad del estudio. En 18 estudios el tratamiento se inició después de la extubación. En el resto de los estudios, los participantes no habían recibido de forma previa ventilación mecánica. HFNC versus oxigenoterapia estándar La HFNC podría conducir a un menor fracaso del tratamiento, según lo indicado por el escalamiento a tipos alternativos de oxigenoterapia (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,62; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,45 a 0,86; 15 estudios, 3044 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La HFNC probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la mortalidad cuando se compara con la oxigenoterapia estándar (RR 0,96; IC del 95%: 0,82 a 1,11; 11 estudios, 2673 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). La HFNC probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia con respecto a los casos de neumonía (RR 0,72; IC del 95%: 0,48 a 1,09; cuatro estudios, 1057 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada), y no se sabe con certeza su efecto sobre la mucosa nasal ni el traumatismo cutáneo (RR 3,66; IC del 95%: 0,43 a 31,48; dos estudios, 617 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Se encontró evidencia de certeza baja de que la HFNC podría dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la duración de la estancia en la UCI según el tipo de asistencia respiratoria utilizada (DM 0,12 días; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,27; siete estudios, 1014 participantes). No se sabe con certeza si la HFNC dio lugar a alguna diferencia en el cociente entre la presión parcial de oxígeno arterial y la fracción de oxígeno inspirado (PaO2/FiO2) en las primeras 24 horas del tratamiento (DM 10,34 mmHg; IC del 95%: ­17,31 a 38; cinco estudios, 600 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se sabe con certeza si la HFNC dio lugar a alguna diferencia en la comodidad a corto plazo (DM 0,31; IC del 95%: ­0,60 a 1,22; cuatro estudios, 662 participantes, evidencia de certeza muy baja), o en la comodidad a largo plazo (DM 0,59; IC del 95%: ­2,29 a 3,47; dos estudios, 445 participantes, evidencia de certeza muy baja). HFNC versus VNI o VPPNI No se encontró evidencia de una diferencia entre los grupos en el fracaso del tratamiento cuando se utilizó la HFNC después de la extubación o sin el uso previo de ventilación mecánica (RR 0,98; IC del 95%: 0,78 a 1,22; cinco estudios, 1758 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), ni en la mortalidad hospitalaria (RR 0,92; IC del 95%: 0,64 a 1,31; cinco estudios, 1758 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No hay certeza sobre el efecto del uso de la HFNC en la incidencia de la neumonía (RR 0,51; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 1,52; tres estudios, 1750 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja), y la HFNC podría dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en el barotraumatismo (RR 1,15; IC del 95%: 0,42 a 3,14; un estudio, 830 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La HFNC podría suponer una diferencia escasa o nula en la duración de la estancia en la UCI (DM ­0,72 días; IC del 95%: ­2,85 a 1,42; dos estudios, 246 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). El cociente PaO2/FiO2 podría ser menor hasta 24 horas con el uso de la HFNC (DM ­58,10 mmHg; IC del 95%: ­71,68 a ­44,51; tres estudios, 1086 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se sabe si la HFNC mejoró la comodidad a corto plazo cuando se midió mediante puntuaciones de comodidad (DM 1,33; IC del 95%: 0,74 a 1,92; dos estudios, 258 participantes) y respuestas a cuestionarios (RR 1,30; IC del 95%: 1,10 a 1,53; un estudio, 168 participantes); la evidencia para la comodidad a corto plazo fue de certeza muy baja. Ningún estudio informó sobre la mucosa nasal ni el traumatismo cutáneo. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La HFNC podría dar lugar a un menor fracaso del tratamiento en comparación con la oxigenoterapia estándar, pero probablemente suponga una escasa o nula diferencia en el fracaso del tratamiento en comparación con la VNI o la VPPNI. Para la mayoría de los demás desenlaces de la revisión, no se encontró evidencia de una diferencia en el efecto. Sin embargo, la certeza de la evidencia se consideró baja o muy baja. Se encontró un gran número de estudios en curso; incluirlos en futuras actualizaciones podría aumentar la certeza o podría alterar la dirección de estos efectos.

Understanding the toolbox: A mixed methods study of attitudes, barriers and facilitators in parental intervention of children's cancer pain at home.

Children with cancer experience pain throughout their cancer trajectory. Pain has short- and long-term negative consequences for children physically and psychologically. Children with cancer spend more time at home with their families and less time in hospital. While this has benefits for quality of life, it shifts responsibility for pain management from healthcare professionals to parents. Little is known about parents' pain management abilities in this setting. This study aimed to understand how parents of children with cancer manage their child's pain at home. A convergent, parallel, mixed methods design including pain diaries, surveys and interviews was used. Participants were parents of children with cancer on active treatment recruited from one tertiary cancer centre. Each data collection method was analysed separately and then integrated. Parents frequently under-medicate their child's pain at home. Practical barriers including the analgesic context and children finding medications unpalatable led parents to prefer non-pharmacological interventions. Attitudinal and practical barriers result in parents having an "empty toolbox" of pharmacological interventions. Consequently non-pharmacological interventions are essential to parents managing their child's cancer pain at home.

Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory morbidity including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and disability. Despite early evidence indicating a beneficial effect of antenatal corticosteroids on fetal lung maturation and widespread recommendations to use this treatment in women at risk of preterm delivery, some uncertainty remains about their effectiveness particularly with regard to their use in lower-resource settings, different gestational ages and high-risk obstetric groups such as women with hypertension or multiple pregnancies. This updated review (which supersedes an earlier review Crowley 1996) was first published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of administering a course of corticosteroids to women prior to anticipated preterm birth (before 37 weeks of pregnancy) on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal mortality and morbidity, and on the child in later life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (3 September 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, the databases that contribute to the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 September 2020), and reference lists of the retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of antenatal corticosteroid administration with placebo, or with no treatment, given to women with a singleton or multiple pregnancy, prior to anticipated preterm delivery (elective, or following rupture of membranes or spontaneous labour), regardless of other co-morbidity, for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, evaluated trustworthiness based on predefined criteria developed by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, extracted data and checked them for accuracy, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included perinatal death, neonatal death, RDS, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), birthweight, developmental delay in childhood and maternal death. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies (11,272 randomised women and 11,925 neonates) from 20 countries. Ten trials (4422 randomised women) took place in lower- or middle-resource settings. We removed six trials from the analysis that were included in the previous version of the review; this review only includes trials that meet our pre-defined trustworthiness criteria. In 19 trials the women received a single course of steroids. In the remaining eight trials repeated courses may have been prescribed. Fifteen trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, two had a high risk of bias in two or more domains and we ten trials had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding (placebo was not used in the control arm. Overall, the certainty of evidence was moderate to high, but it was downgraded for IVH due to indirectness; for developmental delay due to risk of bias and for maternal adverse outcomes (death, chorioamnionitis and endometritis) due to imprecision. Neonatal/child outcomes Antenatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of: - perinatal death (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.93; 9833 infants; 14 studies; high-certainty evidence; 2.3% fewer, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.6% fewer), - neonatal death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; 10,609 infants; 22 studies; high-certainty evidence; 2.6% fewer, 95% CI 1.5% to 3.6% fewer), - respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78; 11,183 infants; studies = 26; high-certainty evidence; 4.3% fewer, 95% CI 3.2% to 5.2% fewer). Antenatal corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of IVH (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; 8475 infants; 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 1.4% fewer, 95% CI 0.8% to1.8% fewer), and probably have little to no effect on birthweight (mean difference (MD) -14.02 g, 95% CI -33.79 to 5.76; 9551 infants; 19 studies; high-certainty evidence). Antenatal corticosteroids probably lead to a reduction in developmental delay in childhood (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 600 children; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 3.8% fewer, 95% CI 0.2% to 5.7% fewer). Maternal outcomes Antenatal corticosteroids probably result in little to no difference in maternal death (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.89; 6244 women; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 0.1% fewer to 0.5% more), chorioamnionitis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.08; 8374 women; 15 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 0.5% fewer, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 0.3% more), and endometritis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.58; 6764 women; 10 studies; moderate-certainty; 0.3% more, 95% CI 0.3% fewer to 1.1% more) The wide 95% CIs in all of these outcomes include possible benefit and possible harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this updated review supports the continued use of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids to accelerate fetal lung maturation in women at risk of preterm birth. Treatment with antenatal corticosteroids reduces the risk of perinatal death, neonatal death and RDS and probably reduces the risk of IVH. This evidence is robust, regardless of resource setting (high, middle or low). Further research should focus on variations in the treatment regimen, effectiveness of the intervention in specific understudied subgroups such as multiple pregnancies and other high-risk obstetric groups, and the risks and benefits in the very early or very late preterm periods. Additionally, outcomes from existing trials with follow-up into childhood and adulthood are needed in order to investigate any longer-term effects of antenatal corticosteroids. We encourage authors of previous studies to provide further information which may answer any remaining questions about the use of antenatal corticosteroids without the need for further randomised controlled trials. Individual patient data meta-analyses from published trials are likely to provide answers for most of the remaining clinical uncertainties.

Manifestation and parental assessment of children's cancer pain at home: An exploratory mixed-methods study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe pain manifestation in children with cancer at home and understand how parents assess this pain. BACKGROUND: Pain is experienced by children with cancer throughout their cancer journey. Short-term, and into survivorship, pain has negative physical and psychological consequences. Changes in treatment location mean children with cancer spend more time at home. Little is known about pain experienced by children at home or how parents assess this pain. DESIGN: A mixed-methods convergent parallel study was reported using STROBE. METHOD: Parents of children with cancer on active treatment were recruited from one tertiary cancer centre. Parental attitudes towards pain expression were assessed using surveys. Parents recorded their child's pain manifestation in pain diaries kept for one month. Interviews captured a deeper understanding of pain manifestation and how parents assess this pain at home. Integration occurred after each data collection method was analysed separately. RESULTS: Predominantly children were not in pain at home. However, most children experienced at least one episode of problematic pain over the pain diary period. Surveys showed parents held misconceptions regarding children's pain expression. Interviews diverge from surveys and suggest parents used a range of information sources to assess pain. CONCLUSION: Children with cancer may differ from one another in the manifestation of pain at home resulting in multiple pain trajectories. Parents of children with cancer are able to adequately assess their child's pain using information from multiple sources. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: It is not currently possible to predict which children will experience problematic pain at home, so all parents require pain management education prior to discharge. Teaching parents to use bundled approaches to pain assessment may accelerate their learning. Healthcare professionals may benefit from using multiple information sources to assess pain.

Impact of congenital heart disease on siblings: A review.

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth defect. Little is known of the impact of having a sibling with CHD. Available literature documents negative impact of having a sibling with other chronic conditions. This literature review considers empirical evidence investigating the impact of having a sibling with CHD. Twelve databases were searched, and 202 articles retrieved. Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria and were subject to data extraction, quality appraisal, and narrative synthesis. Three themes emerged: changes in normal life, impact on siblings, and factors affecting the extent of impact on siblings. Only one intervention study was identified, 5 of 10 studies were conducted over 20 years ago, and only 4 studies included children as participants. Evidence suggests siblings of children with CHD experience adverse life changes which lead to negative impacts in several domains. Evidence is inconclusive regarding mitigating factors of these impacts. Further research is needed to understand the experiences of being a sibling of a child with CHD.

An Integrative Review of Interventions to Support Parents When Managing Their Child's Pain at Home.

To identify interventions aimed at helping parents manage their child's pain at home and to establish which aspects of interventions were effective. Integrative narrative review. MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsychINFO, PsychArticles, AMED, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases were searched in 2016. This narrative synthesis followed Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Economic and Social Research Council guidance. Reasons attributed to intervention success were analyzed using content analysis. From 2,534 papers, 17 were included. A majority were randomized controlled trials (n = 13) and most addressed postoperative pain (n = 15). A range of interventions were found that directly targeted parents, including child-parent interactions and health care professional-parent interactions, as well as complex interventions. Three studies were successful in reducing child pain at home and seven in increasing appropriate analgesic drug administration. Analysis of reasons attributed to interventions success revealed characteristics of interventions, components of parental pain management, and key features of research that aid researchers in designing and evaluating interventions. Risk of bias was present because of inadequate randomization, lack of a control group, and underpowered studies. Nurses should be aware that targeting parents directly is the most effective way of reducing child pain at home. Nurses need to advocate for effective analgesics for their child patients because the ineffectiveness of many interventions was attributed to inadequate analgesic drugs. Once this is achieved, success in increasing analgesic drug administration is most likely reached via parent-targeted interventions and those targeting health care professional-parent interactions. Successful interventions will be tailored to the child and adequately powered. Including a measure of sedation will ensure sedation is not mistaken for analgesic effectiveness. Interventions should address multiple facets of pain management and include a measure of pain over a period as opposed to a snapshot in time.

Managing risk during care transitions when approaching end of life: A qualitative study of patients' and health care professionals' decision making.

BACKGROUND: Increasing importance is being placed on the coordination of services at the end of life. AIM: To describe decision-making processes that influence transitions in care when approaching the end of life. DESIGN: Qualitative study using field observations and longitudinal semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Field observations were undertaken in three sites: a residential care home, a medical assessment unit and a general medical unit in New Zealand. The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool was used to identify participants with advanced and progressive illness. Patients and family members were interviewed on recruitment and 3-4 months later. Four weeks of fieldwork were conducted in each site. A total of 40 interviews were conducted: 29 initial interviews and 11 follow-up interviews. Thematic analysis was undertaken. FINDINGS: Managing risk was an important factor that influenced transitions in care. Patients and health care staff held different perspectives on how such risks were managed. At home, patients tolerated increasing risk and used specific support measures to manage often escalating health and social problems. In contrast, decisions about discharge in hospital were driven by hospital staff who were risk-adverse. Availability of community and carer services supported risk management while a perceived need for early discharge decision making in hospital and making 'safe' discharge options informed hospital discharge decisions. CONCLUSION: While managing risk is an important factor during care transitions, patients should be able to make choices on how to live with risk at the end of life. This requires reconsideration of transitional care and current discharge planning processes at the end of life.

An integrative review of how families are prepared for, and supported during withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in intensive care.

AIM: The aim of this study was to conduct an integrative review on how nurses prepare families for and support families during withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care. BACKGROUND: End-of-life care is widely acknowledged as integral to the practice of intensive care. However, little is known about what happens after the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments has been made and how families are prepared for death and the dying process. DESIGN: Integrative literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsychINFO, PUBMED, Scopus, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge were searched for papers published between 2000-May 2015. REVIEW METHODS: A five stage review process, informed by Whittemore and Knafl's methodology was conducted. All papers were reviewed and quality assessment performed. Data were extracted, organized and analysed. Convergent qualitative thematic synthesis was used. RESULTS: From an identified 479 papers, 24 papers were included in this review with a range of research approaches: qualitative (n = 15); quantitative (n = 4); mixed methods (n = 2); case study (n = 2) and discourse analysis (n = 1). Thematic analysis revealed the nurses: equipped families for end of life through information provision and communication; managed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments to meet family need; and continued care to build memories. CONCLUSION: Greater understanding is needed of the language that can be used with families to describe death and dying in intensive care. Clearer conceptualization of the relationship between the medically focussed withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments and patient/family-centred end-of-life care is required making the nursing contribution at this time more visible.

Redefining the patient-carer model at end of life.

CONTEXT: While the patient-carer dyad has been broadly described, there is little exploration of patient-carer models in use. AIM: To explore types of patient-carer models in use for those with advanced and progressive disease. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients at risk of dying in the next year and their carers across three sites (residential care home, medical assessment unit, general medical unit). Thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Four patient-carer models were identified. In these, the provision of care and of coordination of care services were important areas and organised differently across the patient, the carer, and alternative sources of support. CONCLUSION: A 'one size fits all' patient-carer model is outdated and a new understanding of different types of patient-carer models are required to fully inform care delivered at end of life.