Common challenges and suggestions for risk of bias tool development: a systematic review of methodological studies.

OBJECTIVES: To review the findings of studies that have evaluated the design and/or usability of key risk of bias (RoB) tools for the assessment of RoB in primary studies, as categorized by the Library of Assessment Tools and InsTruments Used to assess Data validity in Evidence Synthesis Network (a searchable library of RoB tools for evidence synthesis): Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASessment Tool (PROBAST) , Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative (QUADAS-C), Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies (QUAPAS), Risk Of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E), and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) RoB checklist. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of methodological studies. We conducted a forward citation search from the primary report of each tool, to identify primary studies that aimed to evaluate the design and/or usability of the tool. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion. We extracted tool features into Microsoft Word and used NVivo for document analysis, comprising a mix of deductive and inductive approaches. We summarized findings within each tool and explored common findings across tools. RESULTS: We identified 13 tool evaluations meeting our inclusion criteria: PROBAST (3), RoB2 (3), ROBINS-I (4), and QUADAS-2 (3). We identified no evaluations for the other tools. Evaluations varied in clinical topic area, methodology, approach to bias assessment, and tool user background. Some had limitations affecting generalizability. We identified common findings across tools for 6/14 themes: (1) challenging items (eg, RoB2/ROBINS-I "deviations from intended interventions" domain), (2) overall RoB judgment (concerns with overall risk calculation in PROBAST/ROBINS-I), (3) tool usability (concerns about complexity), (4) time to complete tool (varying demands on time, eg, depending on number of outcomes assessed), (5) user agreement (varied across tools), and (6) recommendations for future use (eg, piloting) and development (add intermediate domain answer to QUADAS-2/PROBAST; provide clearer guidance for all tools). Of the other eight themes, seven only had findings for the QUADAS-2 tool, limiting comparison across tools, and one ("reorganization of questions") had no findings. CONCLUSION: Evaluations of key RoB tools have posited common challenges and recommendations for tool use and development. These findings may be helpful to people who use or develop RoB tools. Guidance is necessary to support the design and implementation of future RoB tool evaluations.

Accuracy of screening tests for cervical pre-cancer in women living with HIV in low-resource settings: a paired prospective study in Lusaka, Zambia.

Introduction: To provide evidence to improve cervical screening for women living with HIV (WLHIV), we assessed the accuracy of screening tests that can be used in low-resource settings and give results at the same visit. Methods: We conducted a paired, prospective study among consecutive eligible WLHIV, aged 18-65 years, receiving cervical cancer screening at one hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. The histopathological reference standard was multiple biopsies taken at two time points. The target condition was high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). The index tests were high-risk human papillomavirus detection (hrHPV, Xpert HPV, Cepheid), portable colposcopy (Gynocular, Gynius), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Accuracy of stand-alone and test combinations were calculated as the point estimate with 95% confidence intervals. A sensitivity analysis considered disease when only visible lesions were biopsied. Results: Among 371 participants with histopathological results, 27% (101/371) women had CIN2+ and 23% (23/101) was not detected by any index test. Sensitivity and specificity for stand-alone tests were: hrHPV, 67.3% (95% CI: 57.7-75.7) and 65.3% (59.4-70.7); Gynocular 51.5% (41.9-61.0) and 80.0% (74.8-84.3); and VIA 22.8% (15.7-31.9) and 92.6% (88.8-95.2), respectively. The combination of hrHPV testing followed by Gynocular had the best balance of sensitivity (42.6% [33.4-52.3]) and specificity (89.6% [85.3-92.7]). All test accuracies improved in sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: The low accuracy of screening tests assessed might be explained by our reference standard, which reduced verification and misclassification biases. Better screening strategies for WLHIV in low-resource settings are urgently needed. Registration number: The trial was registered prospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov (ref: NCT03931083 ). The study protocol has been previously published, and the statistical analysis plan can be accessed on ClinicalTrials.gov . Key messages: What is already known on this topic: The 2021 World Health Organization guidelines recommend that women living with HIV (WLHIV) receive screening for high risk human papillomavirus high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotypes at three- to five-year intervals, followed by a triage test to determine whether treatment is needed but this is based on low and moderate certainty evidence.What this study adds: This study among WLHIV in Lusaka, Zambia evaluated three screening tests that allow same-day treatment; hrHPV test, portable colposcopy (Gynocular), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), using strict methods to reduce verification and misclassification biases. The test accuracy of the different screening was poor, with sensitivities and specificity for stand-alone tests: hrHPV, 67.3% and 65.3%; Gynocular 51.5% and 80.0%; and VIA 22.8% and 92.6%; respectively.How this study might affect research, practice or policy: Our findings have implications for research and cervical cancer screening policies among WLHIV if test-accuracy in this high-risk population has been overestimated from a majority of exsisting studies that are affected by verification and misclassification biases. Methodologically robust studies are crucial to inform cervical cancer screening practices and policies for the successful implementation of a cervical cancer elimination plan in sub-Saharan Africa, where 85% of women with cervical cancer and HIV live.

Age- versus clinical pretest probability-adjusted D-dimer to rule out lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis in ambulatory patients with active cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), D-dimer thresholds adjusted to age or clinical pretest probability (CPTP) increase the proportion of patients in whom DVT can be safely excluded compared to a standard approach using a fixed D-dimer threshold. Performance of these diagnostic strategies among cancer patients is uncertain. AIM: To compare the performance of age- and CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approaches among cancer outpatients with clinically suspected DVT, and derive a cancer-specific CPTP rule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive ambulatory patients with active cancer and clinically suspected DVT of the lower extremity underwent CPTP assessment using the Wells rule, D-dimer testing, and whole-leg compression ultrasonography. Patients with normal ultrasonography were followed-up for 3 months for the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Upon referral, DVT was diagnosed in 48 of 239 (20.1 %) patients. The age-adjusted approach showed higher specificity and efficiency than the standard approach. Compared to the standard and age-adjusted strategies, the CPTP-adjusted approach had 35 % and 21 % higher specificity, and 34 % and 21 % higher efficiency, respectively. Failure rate, sensitivity, and predictive values were similar across strategies. A simplified CPTP score derived from the Wells rule reduced unnecessary imaging with similar accuracy and efficiency, but higher failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort of ambulatory cancer patients with clinically suspected DVT, the CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approach held the highest specificity and efficiency, potentially safely reducing unnecessary ultrasonography examinations compared to other approaches. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the use of a simplified clinical prediction rule in this setting.

Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) cause suffering for hospitalised children, a fragile patient group where the delivery of adequate timely care is of great importance. OBJECTIVE: To report the incidence and characteristics of AEs, in paediatric inpatient care, as detected with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), the Trigger Tool (TT) or the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) method. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2021, without language restrictions. Studies using manual record review were included if paediatric data were reported separately. We excluded studies reporting: AEs for a specific disease/diagnosis/treatment/procedure, or deceased patients; study protocols with no AE outcomes; conference abstracts, editorials and systematic reviews; clinical incident reports as the primary data source; and studies focusing on specific AEs only. Methodological risk of bias was assessed using a tool based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of admissions with ≥1 AEs. All statistical analyses were stratified by record review methodology (GTT/TT or HMPS) and by type of population. Meta-analyses, applying random-effects models, were carried out. The variability of the pooled estimates was characterised by 95% prediction intervals (PIs). RESULTS: We included 32 studies from 44 publications, conducted in 15 countries totalling 33 873 paediatric admissions. The total number of AEs identified was 8577. The most common types of AEs were nosocomial infections (range, 6.8%-59.6%) for the general care population and pulmonary-related (10.5%-36.7%) for intensive care. The reported incidence rates were highly heterogeneous. The PIs for the primary outcome were 3.8%-53.8% and 6.9%-91.6% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population). The equivalent PI was 0.3%-33.7% for HMPS studies (general care). The PIs for preventable AEs were 7.4%-96.2% and 4.5%-98.9% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population) and 10.4%-91.8% for HMPS studies (general care). The quality assessment indicated several methodological concerns regarding the included studies. CONCLUSION: The reported incidence of AEs is highly variable in paediatric inpatient care research, and it is not possible to estimate a reliable single rate. Poor reporting standards and methodological differences hinder the comparison of study results.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review. RESULTS: Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9-37.5; I2 = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4-164.7. Overall studies' risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation. CONCLUSION: Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

Extended venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) that may persist beyond the currently recommended period of 6 to 14 days of thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of extended venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to December 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing extended versus standard venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke. The efficacy outcome was a composite of asymptomatic or symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related death. The safety outcome was major bleeding. Summary risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials enrolling 33718 patients were included. Of 4330 (12.8%) patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke, 2152 (49.7%) received extended thromboprophylaxis for four to five weeks with betrixaban (n = 405, 18.8%), enoxaparin (n = 198, 9.2%), or rivaroxaban (n = 1549, 72.0%), and 2178 (50.3%) received standard venous thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin. VTE risk was lower in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving extended thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.04; 13 fewer per 1000), whereas the increase in major bleeding seemed trivial when compared with standard prophylaxis (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.31 to 3.95; 1 more per 1000). CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke, the net clinical benefit may favor extended venous thromboprophylaxis for four to five weeks over standard thromboprophylaxis.

QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.

Interventions for preventing falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of single, multiple, and multifactorial interventions to prevent falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older persons. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, from inception until February 27, 2019. Two large RCTs (published in 2020 after the search closed) were included in post hoc analyses. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. RESULTS: NMA including 192 studies revealed that the following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fallers: exercise (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.89) and quality improvement strategies (e.g., patient education) (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.98). Exercise as a single intervention was associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86). Common components of multiple interventions significantly associated with a reduction in number of fallers and falls rate were exercise, assistive technology, environmental assessment and modifications, quality improvement strategies, and basic falls risk assessment (e.g., medication review). Multifactorial interventions were associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.80-0.95), but not with a reduction in number of fallers (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.01). The following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fall-related fractures: basic falls risk assessment (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39-0.94) and exercise (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with Tricco et al. (2017), several single and multiple fall prevention interventions are associated with fewer falls. In addition to Tricco, we observe a benefit at the NMA-level of some single interventions on preventing fall-related fractures.

Medication review interventions to reduce hospital readmissions in older people.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of medication review as an isolated intervention and with several co-interventions for preventing hospital readmissions in older adults. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of medication review interventions with or without co-interventions to prevent hospital readmissions in hospitalized or recently discharged adults aged ≥65, until September 13, 2019. Included outcomes were "at least one all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days and at any time after discharge from the index admission." RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 studies (7,318 participants) contributed to the network meta-analysis (NMA) on all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days. Medication review in combination with (a) medication reconciliation and patient education (risk ratio (RR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.80) and (b) medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49-0.84) were associated with a lower risk of all-cause hospital readmission compared to usual care. Medication review in isolation did not significantly influence hospital readmissions (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.45-2.51). The NMA on all-cause hospital readmission at any time included 24 studies (11,677 participants). Medication review combined with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care resulted in a reduction of hospital readmissions (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74-0.91) compared to usual care. The quality of the studies included in this systematic review raised some concerns, mainly regarding allocation concealment, blinding and contamination. CONCLUSION: Medication review in combination with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care, was associated with a lower risk of hospital readmissions compared to usual care. An effect of medication review without co-interventions was not demonstrated. Trials of higher quality are needed in this field.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the third update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or an active control intervention. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 3 August 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies and contacted content experts and trialists for relevant references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on risk of bias, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six additional randomised controlled trials (3326 participants) for this update, bringing the included study total to 32 (15,678 participants), all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The certainty of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (direct factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban) may decrease the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.06; 3 studies, 1526 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably increases the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.68; 3 studies, 1494 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83; 11 studies, 3931 participants; high-certainty evidence); and probably increased the risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.35; 15 studies, 7282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH resulted in lower symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83; 1 study, 439 participants; high-certainty evidence), while LMWH probably lowers symptomatic VTE more than aspirin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 781 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants with multiple myeloma treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis, but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, warfarin may importantly reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20; 1 study, 311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in major bleeding (RR 3.82, 95% CI 0.97 to 15.04; 4 studies, 994 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study evaluated antithrombin versus no antithrombin in children. This study did not report on symptomatic VTE but did report any VTE (symptomatic and incidental VTE). The effect of antithrombin on any VTE and major bleeding is uncertain (any VTE: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.73; major bleeding: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.03 to 18.57; 1 study, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory cancer patients, primary thromboprophylaxis with direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE (low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo. LMWH decreases the incidence of symptomatic VTE (high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. Evidence for the use of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants other than direct factor Xa inhibitors and LMWH is limited. More studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary prophylaxis in specific types of chemotherapeutic agents and types of cancer, such as gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020. RESULTS: We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

Screening test accuracy of portable devices that can be used to perform colposcopy for detecting CIN2+ in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Portable devices that can be used to perform colposcopy may improve cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where access to colposcopy is limited. The objective of this study was to systematically review the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of these devices for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+). METHODS: In accordance with our protocol (Prospero CRD42018104286), we searched Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials up to 9/2019. We included DTA studies, which investigated portable devices with moderate-to-high optical magnification (≥ 6×) for colposcopy, as described in the manual for Colposcopy and Treatment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a histopathological reference standard. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality. We examined results for sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, stratified by stages in the clinical pathway. We pooled estimates of test accuracy for the index test, used as an add-on to other tests, using a bivariate random-effect model. RESULTS: We screened 1737 references and assessed 239 full-text articles for eligibility. Five single-gate DTA studies, including 2693 women, met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated two devices (Gynocular™ and Pocket) at different stages of the screening pathway. In three studies, which used the index test in an add-on capacity in 1273 women, we found a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.55-0.92) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.59-0.94). The main sources of bias were partial verification, incorporation and classification bias. CONCLUSION: Few studies have evaluated portable devices able to perform colposcopy, so their accuracy for the detection of CIN2+ remains uncertain. Future studies should include patient-relevant and long-term outcomes, including missed cases, overtreatment, residual and recurrent disease. To meet the challenge of eliminating cervical cancer in LMIC, methods for visual assessment of the cervix need urgent redress.

Pragmatic trial on inhaled corticosteroid withdrawal in patients with COPD in general practice.

The therapeutic value of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for COPD is limited. In published RCTs, ICS could be withdrawn in COPD patients without increasing exacerbation risk when bronchodilator treatment is optimized. Here we report on the feasibility and risks of ICS withdrawal in Dutch general practice for COPD patients without an indication for ICSs. In our pragmatic trial, general practitioners decided autonomously which of their COPD patients on ICS treatment could stop this, how this was done, and whether additional bronchodilator therapy was needed. We recruited 62 COPD patients (58 analysed) who were eligible for ICS withdrawal in 79 practices. In 32 patients (55.2%, 95% CI: 42.5-67.3%) ICS was withdrawn successfully, 19 (32.8%, 95% CI: 22.1-45.6%) restarted ICS treatment within six months, 12 patients (20.7%, 95% CI: 12.3-32.8%) had a moderate exacerbation, and one patient had a severe exacerbation. ICS withdrawal was successful in just over half of the patients with COPD without an indication for ICS.

Venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) may complicate the course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence of VTE in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched up to 24th June 2020 for studies that evaluated the incidence of VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PI) were calculated by random-effect meta-analysis. RESULTS: 3487 patients from 30 studies were included. Based on very low-quality evidence due to heterogeneity and risk of bias, the incidence of VTE was 26% (95% PI, 6%-66%). PE with or without DVT occurred in 12% of patients (95% PI, 2%-46%) and DVT alone in 14% (95% PI, 1%-75%). Studies using standard algorithms for clinically suspected VTE reported PE in 13% of patients (95% PI, 2%-57%) and DVT in 6% (95% PI, 0%-60%), compared to 11% (95% PI, 2%-46%) and 24% (95% PI, 2%-85%) in studies using other diagnostic strategies or patient sampling. In patients admitted to intensive care units, VTE occurred in 24% (95% PI, 5%-66%), PE in 19% (95% PI, 6%-47%), and DVT alone in 7% (95% PI, 0%-69%). Corresponding values in general wards were respectively 9% (95% PI, 0%-94%), 4% (95% PI, 0%-100%), and 7% (95% CI, 1%-49%). CONCLUSIONS: VTE represents a frequent complication in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and often occurs as PE. The threshold for clinical suspicion should be low to trigger prompt diagnostic testing.

Acute complications and mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).

Computerised cognitive training for 12 or more weeks for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life.

BACKGROUND: Increasing age is associated with a natural decline in cognitive function and is the greatest risk factor for dementia. Cognitive decline and dementia are significant threats to independence and quality of life in older adults. Therefore, identifying interventions that help to maintain cognitive function in older adults or that reduce the risk of dementia is a research priority. Cognitive training uses repeated practice on standardised exercises targeting one or more cognitive domains and may be intended to improve or maintain optimal cognitive function. This review examines the effects of computerised cognitive training interventions lasting at least 12 weeks on the cognitive function of healthy adults aged 65 or older and has formed part of a wider project about modifying lifestyle to maintain cognitive function. We chose a minimum 12 weeks duration as a trade-off between adequate exposure to a sustainable intervention and feasibility in a trial setting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of computerised cognitive training interventions lasting at least 12 weeks on cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched to 31 March 2018 in ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), and we performed additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP (www.apps.who.int/trialsearch), to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, published or unpublished, reported in any language. Participants were cognitively healthy people, and at least 80% of the study population had to be aged 65 or older. Experimental interventions adhered to the following criteria: intervention was any form of interactive computerised cognitive intervention - including computer exercises, computer games, mobile devices, gaming console, and virtual reality - that involved repeated practice on standardised exercises of specified cognitive domain(s) for the purpose of enhancing cognitive function; the duration of the intervention was at least 12 weeks; cognitive outcomes were measured; and cognitive training interventions were compared with active or inactive control interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed preliminary screening of search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method to identify RCTs. At least two review authors working independently screened the remaining citations against inclusion criteria. At least two review authors also independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included RCTs. Where appropriate, we synthesised data in random-effects meta-analyses, comparing computerised cognitive training (CCT) separately with active and inactive controls. We expressed treatment effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE methods to describe the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs with a total of 1183 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 12 to 26 weeks; in five trials, the duration of intervention was 12 or 13 weeks. The included studies had moderate risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. We compared CCT first against active control interventions, such as watching educational videos. Negative SMDs favour CCT over control. Trial results suggest slight improvement in global cognitive function at the end of the intervention period (12 weeks) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to -0.05; 232 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). One of these trials also assessed global cognitive function 12 months after the end of the intervention; this trial provided no clear evidence of a persistent effect (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.24; 77 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). CCT may result in little or no difference at the end of the intervention period in episodic memory (12 to 17 weeks) (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.26; 439 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) or working memory (12 to 16 weeks) (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.02; 392 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Because of the very low quality of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the effects of CCT on speed of processing and executive function. We also compared CCT to inactive control (no interventions). We found no data on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. At the end of the intervention, CCT may lead to slight improvement in episodic memory (6 months) (mean difference (MD) in Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) -0.90 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.73 to -0.07; 150 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence) but can have little or no effect on executive function (12 weeks to 6 months) (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.15; 292 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence), working memory (16 weeks) (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.27; 60 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence), or verbal fluency (6 months) (MD -0.11, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.36; 150 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). We could not determine any effects on speed of processing because the evidence was of very low quality. We found no evidence on quality of life, activities of daily living, or adverse effects in either comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence suggesting that immediately after completion of the intervention, small benefits of CCT may be seen for global cognitive function when compared with active controls, and for episodic memory when compared with an inactive control. These benefits are of uncertain clinical importance. We found no evidence that the effect on global cognitive function persisted 12 months later. Our confidence in the results was low, reflecting the overall quality of the evidence. In five of the eight trials, the duration of the intervention was just three months. The possibility that more extensive training could yield larger benefit remains to be more fully explored. We found substantial literature on cognitive training, and collating all available scientific information posed problems. Duration of treatment may not be the best way to categorise interventions for inclusion. As the primary interest of older people and of guideline writers and policymakers involves sustained cognitive benefit, an alternative would be to categorise by length of follow-up after selecting studies that assess longer-term effects.

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can assess the results and the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We present an overview of the GRADE approach and guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Part 1 of the two parts in this 21st guidance article about how to apply GRADE focuses on understanding study design issues in test accuracy, provide an overview of the domains, and describe risk of bias and indirectness specifically. RESULTS: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence using GRADE can evaluate study designs focusing on tests and how they apply the GRADE domains risk of bias and indirectness to a body of evidence of TA studies. CONCLUSION: Rating the certainty of a body of evidence using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews and World Health Organization and other guidelines dealing with in TA studies helped refining our approach. The resulting guidance will help applying GRADE successfully for questions and recommendations focusing on tests.

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias, and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. RESULTS: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies. CONCLUSION: Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. Although several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.