Machine learning for identifying Randomized Controlled Trials: An evaluation and practitioner's guide

Mobile health (m-health) smartphone interventions for adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity

BACKGROUND

Obesity is considered to be a risk factor for various diseases, and its incidence has tripled worldwide since 1975. In addition to potentially being at risk for adverse health outcomes, people with overweight or obesity are often stigmatised. Behaviour change interventions are increasingly delivered as mobile health (m-health) interventions, using smartphone apps and wearables. They are believed to support healthy behaviours at the individual level in a low-threshold manner.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of integrated smartphone applications for adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and LILACS, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 2 October 2023 (date of last search for all databases). We placed no restrictions on the language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants were adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity. Eligible interventions were integrated smartphone apps using at least two behaviour change techniques. The intervention could target physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, weight loss, healthy diet, or self-efficacy. Comparators included no or minimal intervention (NMI), a different smartphone app, personal coaching, or usual care. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of any duration with a follow-up of at least three months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology and the RoB 2 tool. Important outcomes were physical activity, body mass index (BMI) and weight, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, well-being, change in dietary behaviour, and adverse events. We focused on presenting studies with medium- (6 to < 12 months) and long-term (≥ 12 months) outcomes in our summary of findings table, following recommendations in the core outcome set for behavioural weight management interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies with 2703 participants. Interventions lasted from 2 to 24 months. The mean BMI in adults ranged from 27 to 50, and the median BMI z-score in adolescents ranged from 2.2 to 2.5. Smartphone app versus no or minimal intervention Thirteen studies compared a smartphone app versus NMI in adults; no studies were available for adolescents. The comparator comprised minimal health advice, handouts, food diaries, smartphone apps unrelated to weight loss, and waiting list. Measures of physical activity: at 12 months' follow-up, a smartphone app compared to NMI probably reduces moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) slightly (mean difference (MD) -28.9 min/week (95% confidence interval (CI) -85.9 to 28; 1 study, 650 participants; moderate-certainty evidence)). We are very uncertain about the results of estimated energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness at eight months' follow-up. A smartphone app compared with NMI probably results in little to no difference in changes in total activity time at 12 months' follow-up and leisure time physical activity at 24 months' follow-up. Anthropometric measures: a smartphone app compared with NMI may reduce BMI (MD of BMI change -2.6 kg/m2, 95% CI -6 to 0.8; 2 studies, 146 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at six to eight months' follow-up, but the evidence is very uncertain. At 12 months' follow-up, a smartphone app probably resulted in little to no difference in BMI change (MD -0.1 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.3; 1 study; 650 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A smartphone app compared with NMI may result in little to no difference in body weight change (MD -2.5 kg, 95% CI -6.8 to 1.7; 3 studies, 1044 participants; low-certainty evidence) at 12 months' follow-up. At 24 months' follow-up, a smartphone app probably resulted in little to no difference in body weight change (MD 0.7 kg, 95% CI -1.2 to 2.6; 1 study, 245 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A smartphone app compared with NMI may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy for a physical activity score at eight months' follow-up, but the results are very uncertain. A smartphone app probably results in little to no difference in quality of life and well-being at 12 months (moderate-certainty evidence) and in little to no difference in various measures used to inform dietary behaviour at 12 and 24 months' follow-up. We are very uncertain about adverse events, which were only reported narratively in two studies (very low-certainty evidence). Smartphone app versus another smartphone app Two studies compared different versions of the same app in adults, showing no or minimal differences in outcomes. One study in adults compared two different apps (calorie counting versus ketogenic diet) and suggested a slight reduction in body weight at six months in favour of the ketogenic diet app. No studies were available for adolescents. Smartphone app versus personal coaching Only one study compared a smartphone app with personal coaching in adults, presenting data at three months. Two studies compared these interventions in adolescents. A smartphone app resulted in little to no difference in BMI z-score compared to personal coaching at six months' follow-up (MD 0, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.2; 1 study; 107 participants). Smartphone app versus usual care Only one study compared an app with usual care in adults but only reported data at three months on participant satisfaction. No studies were available for adolescents. We identified 34 ongoing studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is limited and does not demonstrate a clear benefit of smartphone applications as interventions for adolescents or adults with overweight or obesity. While the number of studies is growing, the evidence remains incomplete due to the high variability of the apps' features, content and components, which complicates direct comparisons and assessment of their effectiveness. Comparisons with either no or minimal intervention or personal coaching show minor effects, which are mostly not clinically significant. Minimal data for adolescents also warrants further research. Evidence is also scarce for low- and middle-income countries as well as for people with different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. The 34 ongoing studies suggest sustained interest in the topic, with new evidence expected to emerge within the next two years. In practice, clinicians and healthcare practitioners should carefully consider the potential benefits, limitations, and evolving research when recommending smartphone apps to adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity.

Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairment in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Infants born preterm are at increased risk of cognitive and motor impairments compared with infants born at term. Early developmental interventions for preterm infants are targeted at the infant or the parent-infant relationship, or both, and may focus on different aspects of early development. They aim to improve developmental outcomes for these infants, but the long-term benefits remain unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007 and updated in 2012 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effect of early developmental interventions compared with standard care in prevention of motor or cognitive impairment for preterm infants in infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), and school age (five to < 18 years). Secondary objective To assess the effect of early developmental interventions compared with standard care on motor or cognitive impairment for subgroups of preterm infants, including groups based on gestational age, birthweight, brain injury, timing or focus of intervention and study quality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and trial registries in July 2023. We cross-referenced relevant literature, including identified trials and existing review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies included randomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-randomised trials of early developmental intervention programmes that began within the first 12 months of life for infants born before 37 weeks' gestational age (GA). Interventions could commence as an inpatient but had to include a post discharge component for inclusion in this review. Outcome measures were not prespecified, other than that they had to assess cognitive outcomes, motor outcomes or both. The control groups in the studies could receive standard care that would normally be provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the included studies regarding study and participant characteristics, timing and focus of interventions and cognitive and motor outcomes. Meta-analysis using RevMan was carried out to determine the effects of early developmental interventions at each age range: infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years) and school age (five to < 18 years) on cognitive and motor outcomes. Subgroup analyses focused on GA, birthweight, brain injury, time of commencement of the intervention, focus of the intervention and study quality. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to collect data and evaluate bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (5051 randomly assigned participants). There were 19 new studies identified in this update (600 participants) and a further 17 studies awaiting outcomes. Three previously included studies had new data. There was variability in the focus and intensity of the interventions, participant characteristics, and length of follow-up. All included studies were either single or multicentre trials and the number of participants varied from fewer than 20 to up to 915 in one study. The trials included in this review were mainly undertaken in middle- or high-income countries. The majority of studies commenced in the hospital, with fewer commencing once the infant was home. The focus of the intervention programmes for new included studies was increasingly targeted at both the infant and the parent-infant relationship. The intensity and dosages of interventions varied between studies, which is important when considering the applicability of any programme in a clinical setting. Meta-analysis demonstrated that early developmental intervention may improve cognitive outcomes in infancy (developmental quotient (DQ): standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.40; P < 0.001; 25 studies; 3132 participants, low-certainty evidence), and improves cognitive outcomes at preschool age (intelligence quotient (IQ); SMD 0.39 SD, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.50; P < 0.001; 9 studies; 1524 participants, high-certainty evidence). However, early developmental intervention may not improve cognitive outcomes at school age (IQ: SMD 0.16 SD, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.38; P = 0.15; 6 studies; 1453 participants, low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity between studies for cognitive outcomes in infancy and preschool age was moderate and at school age was substantial. Regarding motor function, meta-analysis of 23 studies showed that early developmental interventions may improve motor outcomes in infancy (motor scale DQ: SMD 0.12 SD, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.19; P = 0.003; 23 studies; 2737 participants, low-certainty evidence). At preschool age, the intervention probably did not improve motor outcomes (motor scale: SMD 0.08 SD, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32; P = 0.53; 3 studies; 264 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at school age for both continuous (motor scale: SMD -0.06 SD, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.18; P = 0.61; three studies; 265 participants, low-certainty evidence) and dichotomous outcome measures (low score on Movement Assessment Battery for Children (ABC) : RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.32; P = 0.74; 3 studies; 413 participants, low-certainty evidence) suggests that intervention may not improve motor outcome. The main source of bias was performance bias, where there was a lack of blinding of participants and personnel, which was unavoidable in this type of intervention study. Other biases in some studies included attrition bias where the outcome data were incomplete, and inadequate allocation concealment or selection bias. The GRADE assessment identified a lower certainty of evidence in the cognitive and motor outcomes at school age. Cognitive outcomes at preschool age demonstrated a high certainty due to more consistency and a larger treatment effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early developmental intervention programmes for preterm infants probably improve cognitive and motor outcomes during infancy (low-certainty evidence) while, at preschool age, intervention is shown to improve cognitive outcomes (high-certainty evidence). Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies due to variations in aspects of the intervention programmes, the population and outcome measures utilised. Further research is needed to determine which types of early developmental interventions are most effective in improving cognitive and motor outcomes, and in particular to discern whether there is a longer-term benefit from these programmes.

Surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults

BACKGROUND

Growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma is a severe endocrine disease. Surgery is the currently recommended primary therapy for patients with GH-secreting tumours. However, non-surgical therapy (pharmacological therapy and radiation therapy) may be performed as primary therapy or may improve surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search of all databases was 1 August 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of more than 12 weeks' duration, reporting on surgical, pharmacological, radiation, and combination interventions for GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in any healthcare setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, screened for inclusion, completed data extraction, and performed a risk of bias assessment. We assessed studies for overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, or in descriptive format when meta-analysis was not possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs that evaluated 445 adults with GH-secreting pituitary adenomas. Four studies reported that they included participants with macroadenomas, one study included a small number of participants with microadenomas. The remaining studies did not specify tumour subtypes. Studies evaluated surgical therapy alone, pharmacological therapy alone, or combination surgical and pharmacological therapy. Methodological quality varied, with many studies providing insufficient information to compare treatment strategies or accurately judge the risk of bias. We identified two main comparisons, surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy alone, and surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy and surgery combined. Surgical therapy alone versus pharmacological therapy alone Three studies with a total of 164 randomised participants investigated this comparison. Only one study narratively described hyperglycaemia as a disease-related complication. All three studies reported adverse events, yet only one study reported numbers separately for the intervention arms; none of the 11 participants were observed to develop gallbladder stones or sludge on ultrasonography following surgery, while five of 11 participants experienced any biliary problems following pharmacological therapy (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was reported to improve similarly in both intervention arms during follow-up. Surgery alone compared to pharmacological therapy alone may slightly increase the biochemical remission rate from 12 weeks to one year after intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain; 36/78 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 15/66 in the pharmacological therapy group showed biochemical remission. The need for additional surgery or non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease was described for single study arms only. Surgical therapy alone versus preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery Five studies with a total of 281 randomised participants provided data for this comparison. Preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may have little to no effect on the disease-related complication of a difficult intubation (requiring postponement of surgery) compared to surgery alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.34; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Surgery alone may have little to no effect on (transient and persistent) adverse events when compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery, but again, the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.03; 5 studies, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning biochemical remission, surgery alone compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may not increase remission rates up until 16 weeks after surgery; 23 of 134 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 51 of 133 in the preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery group showed biochemical remission. Furthermore, the very low-certainty evidence did not suggest benefit or detriment of preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery compared to surgery alone for the outcomes 'requiring additional surgery' (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.06; 1 study, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or 'non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease' (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.28; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies measured health-related quality of life. None of the eight included studies measured disease recurrence or socioeconomic effects. While three of the eight studies reported no deaths to have occurred, one study mentioned that overall, two participants had died within five years of the start of the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas, patient-relevant outcomes, such as disease-related complications, adverse events and disease recurrence were not, or only sparsely, reported. When reported, we found that surgery may have little or no effect on the outcomes compared to the comparator treatment. The current evidence is limited by the small number of included studies, as well as the unclear risk of bias in most studies. The high uncertainty of evidence significantly limits the applicability of our findings to clinical practice. Detailed reporting on the burden of recurrent disease is an important knowledge gap to be evaluated in future research studies. It is also crucial that future studies in this area are designed to report on outcomes by tumour subtype (that is, macroadenomas versus microadenomas) so that future subgroup analyses can be conducted. More rigorous and larger studies, powered to address these research questions, are required to assess the merits of neoadjuvant pharmacological therapy or first-line pharmacotherapy.

Early versus late administration of amino acids in preterm infants receiving parenteral nutrition

BACKGROUND

Observational studies in preterm newborns suggest that delay in administering amino acids (AA) could result in a protein catabolic state and impact on growth and development.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of early versus late administration of intravenous AA in neonates born at < 37 weeks of gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries in March 2023. We checked the reference lists of included studies and studies/systematic reviews where subject matter related to the intervention or population examined in this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early administration of AA with late administration in premature newborn infants. We defined early administration of AA solution as the administration of AA in isolation or with total parenteral nutrition within the first 24 hours of birth, and late administration as the administration of AA in isolation or with total parenteral nutrition after the first 24 hours of birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (383 participants) were eligible for inclusion in the review. All study participants were born at < 37 weeks of gestation and were inpatients in neonatal intensive care units. No studies reported growth during the first months of life as assessed by difference in weight. Early administration of AA may have little or no effect on growth in the first month of life as measured by length (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 0.41; 1 study; 21 participants; low-certainty evidence) and head circumference (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.14; 2 studies; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the discharge weight outcome. Early administration of AA may result in little to no difference in neurodevelopmental outcome assessed by Mental Developmental Index (MDI) of < 70 at two years of age (odds ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.28; 1 study; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported all-cause mortality at 28 days and before discharge. Early administration of AA may result in a large increase in positive nitrogen balance in the first three days of life (MD 250.42, 95% CI 224.91 to 275.93; 4 studies; 93 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be little to no difference between early and late administration of AA in growth (measured by length and head circumference during the first month after birth) and neurodevelopmental outcome (assessed by MDI of < 70). No RCTs reported on weight in the first month of life, mortality (all-cause mortality at 28 days and before discharge), or discharge weight. Low-certainty evidence suggests a large increase in positive nitrogen balance in preterm infants who received AA within 24 hours of birth. The clinical relevance of this observation is unknown. The number of infants in the RCTs included in the review was small, and there was clinical heterogeneity amongst trials. Adequately powered trials in infants < 37 weeks' gestation are required to determine optimal timing of initiation of AA. We identified two ongoing studies. Both studies will be recruiting infants ≥ 34 weeks of gestation and may or may not add to the outcome data for this review.

Psychological interventions for asthma in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Rates of asthma are high in children and adolescents, and young people with asthma generally report poorer health outcomes than those without asthma. Young people with asthma experience a range of challenges that may contribute to psychological distress. This is compounded by the social, psychological, and developmental challenges experienced by all people during this life stage. Psychological interventions (such as behavioural therapies or cognitive therapies) have the potential to reduce psychological distress and thus improve behavioural outcomes such as self-efficacy and medication adherence. In turn, this may reduce medical contacts and asthma attacks.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of psychological interventions for modifying health and behavioural outcomes in children with asthma, compared with usual treatment, treatment with no psychological component, or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (including CENTRAL, CRS, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL EBSCO, AMED EBSCO), proceedings of major respiratory conferences, reference lists of included studies, and online clinical databases. The most recent search was conducted on 22 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological interventions of any duration with usual care, active controls, or a waiting-list control in male and female children and adolescents (aged five to 18 years) with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. symptoms of anxiety and depression, 2. medical contacts, and 3. asthma attacks. Our secondary outcomes were 1. self-reported asthma symptoms, 2. medication use, 3. quality of life, and 4. adverse events/side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (1639 participants) published between 1978 and 2021. Eleven studies were set in the USA, five in China, two in Sweden, three in Iran, and one each in the Netherlands, UK, and Germany. Participants' asthma severity ranged from mild to severe. Three studies included primary school-aged participants (five to 12 years), two included secondary school-aged participants (13 to 18 years), and 18 included both age groups, while one study was unclear on the age ranges. Durations of interventions ranged from three days to eight months. One intervention was conducted online and the rest were face-to-face. Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity (interventions, populations, outcome tools and definitions, and length of follow-up). We tabulated and summarised the results narratively with reference to direction, magnitude, and certainty of effects. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. A lack of information about scale metrics and minimal clinically important differences for the scales used to measure anxiety, depression, asthma symptoms, medication use, and quality of life made it difficult to judge clinical significance. Primary outcomes Four studies (327 participants) reported beneficial or mixed effects of psychological interventions versus controls for symptoms of anxiety, and one found little to no difference between groups (104 participants). Two studies (166 participants) that evaluated symptoms of depression both reported benefits of psychological interventions compared to controls. Three small studies (92 participants) reported a reduction in medical contacts, but two larger studies (544 participants) found little or no difference between groups in this outcome. Two studies (107 participants) found that the intervention had an important beneficial effect on number of asthma attacks, and one small study (22 participants) found little or no effect of the intervention for this outcome. Secondary outcomes Eleven studies (720 participants) assessed asthma symptoms; four (322 participants) reported beneficial effects of the intervention compared to control, five (257 participants) reported mixed or unclear findings, and two (131 participants) found little or no difference between groups. Eight studies (822 participants) reported a variety of medication use measures; six of these studies (670 participants) found a positive effect of the intervention versus control, and the other two (152 participants) found little or no difference between the groups. Across six studies (653 participants) reporting measures of quality of life, the largest three (522 participants) found little or no difference between the groups. Where findings were positive or mixed, there was evidence of selective reporting (2 studies, 131 participants). No studies provided data related to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most studies that reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, asthma attacks, asthma symptoms, and medication use found a positive effect of psychological interventions versus control on at least one measure. However, some findings were mixed, it was difficult to judge clinical significance, and the evidence for all outcomes is very uncertain due to clinical heterogeneity, small sample sizes, incomplete reporting, and risk of bias. There is limited evidence to suggest that psychological interventions can reduce the need for medical contact or improve quality of life, and no studies reported adverse events. It was not possible to identify components of effective interventions and distinguish these from interventions showing no evidence of an effect due to substantial heterogeneity. Future investigations of evidence-based psychological techniques should consider standardising outcomes to support cross-comparison and better inform patient and policymaker decision-making.

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period.

OBJECTIVES

1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?

BACKGROUND

While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration.

DISCUSSION

There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking.

CONCLUSIONS

While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers.

Topical and oral steroids for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. Although most episodes of OME in children resolve spontaneously within a few months, when persistent it may lead to behavioural problems and a delay in expressive language skills. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, medical, surgical and other treatments, such as autoinflation. Oral or topical steroids are sometimes used to reduce inflammation in the middle ear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of topical and oral steroids for OME in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies on 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared topical or oral steroids with either placebo or watchful waiting (no treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes, determined by a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise, were: 1) hearing, 2) OME-specific quality of life and 3) systemic corticosteroid side effects. Secondary outcomes were: 1) presence/persistence of OME, 2) other adverse effects (including local nasal effects), 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial outcomes, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function and 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies in this review (2770 children). Most studies of oral steroids used prednisolone for 7 to 14 days. Studies of topical (nasal) steroids used various preparations (beclomethasone, fluticasone and mometasone) for between two weeks and three months. All studies had at least some concerns regarding risk of bias. Here we report our primary outcomes and main secondary outcome, at the longest reported follow-up. Oral steroids compared to placebo Oral steroids probably result in little or no difference in the proportion of children with normal hearing after 12 months (69.7% of children with steroids, compared to 61.1% of children receiving placebo, risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.33; 1 study, 332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in OME-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) in OM8-30 score 0.07, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.34; 1 study, 304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Oral steroids may reduce the number of children with persistent OME at 6 to 12 months, but the size of the effect was uncertain (absolute risk reduction ranging from 13.3% to 45%, number needed to treat (NNT) of between 3 and 8; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain regarding the risk of systemic corticosteroid side effects, and we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome. Oral steroids compared to no treatment Oral steroids may result in little or no difference in the persistence of OME after three to nine months (74.5% children receiving steroids versus 73% of those receiving placebo; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 2 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence on adverse effects was very uncertain. We did not identify any evidence on hearing or disease-related quality of life. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to placebo We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean change in hearing threshold after two months was -0.3 dB lower (95% CI -6.05 to 5.45; 1 study, 78 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that nasal steroids make little or no difference to disease-specific quality of life after nine months (OM8-30 score, MD 0.05 higher, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.46; 1 study, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of nasal steroids on persistence of OME at up to one year. Two studies reported this: one showed a potential benefit for nasal steroids, the other showed a benefit with placebo (2 studies, 206 participants). The evidence was also very uncertain regarding the risk of corticosteroid-related side effects, as we were unable to provide a pooled effect estimate. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to no treatment We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean difference in final hearing threshold after four weeks was 1.95 dB lower (95% CI -3.85 to -0.05; 1 study, 168 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nasal steroids may reduce the persistence of OME after eight weeks, but the evidence was very uncertain (58.5% of children receiving steroids, compared to 81.3% of children without treatment, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 2 studies, 134 participants). We did not identify any evidence on disease-related quality of life or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, oral steroids may have little effect in the treatment of OME, with little improvement in the number of children with normal hearing and no effect on quality of life. There may be a reduction in the proportion of children with persistent disease after 12 months. However, this benefit may be small and must be weighed against the potential for adverse effects associated with oral steroid use. The evidence for nasal steroids was all low- or very low-certainty. It is therefore less clear if nasal steroids have any impact on hearing, quality of life or persistence of OME. Evidence on adverse effects was very limited. OME is likely to resolve spontaneously for most children. The potential benefit of treatment may therefore be small and should be balanced with the risk of adverse effects. Future studies should aim to determine which children are most likely to benefit from treatment, rather than offering interventions to all children.

Diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Many children undergo various surgeries, which often lead to acute postoperative pain. This pain influences recovery and quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors such as diclofenac, can be used to treat pain and reduce inflammation. There is uncertainty regarding diclofenac's benefits and harms compared to placebo or other drugs for postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of diclofenac (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo, other active comparators, or diclofenac administered by different routes (e.g. oral, rectal, etc.) or strategies (e.g. 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled').

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and trial registries on 11 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children under 18 years of age undergoing surgery that compared diclofenac (delivered in any dose and route) to placebo or any active pharmacological intervention. We included RCTs comparing different administration routes of diclofenac and different strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: pain relief (PR) reported by the child, defined as the proportion of children reporting 50% or better postoperative pain relief; pain intensity (PI) reported by the child; adverse events (AEs); and serious adverse events (SAEs). We presented results using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs with 2250 children. All surgeries were done using general anaesthesia. Most studies (27) included children above age three. Only two studies had an overall low risk of bias; 30 had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. Diclofenac versus placebo (three studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus placebo on nausea/vomiting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.80; 2 studies, 100 children) and any reported bleeding (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 26.45; 2 studies, 100 children), both very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus opioids (seven studies) We are very uncertain if diclofenac reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively compared to opioids (median pain intensity 0.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.0 to 2.5) for diclofenac versus median 0.7 (IQR 0.1 to 2.4) in the opioid group; 1 study, 50 children; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on PR or PI for other time points. Diclofenac probably results in less nausea/vomiting compared to opioids (41.0% in opioids, 31.0% in diclofenac; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96; 7 studies, 463 participants), and probably increases any reported bleeding (5.4% in opioids, 16.5% in diclofenac; RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.13; 2 studies, 222 participants), both moderate-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus paracetamol (10 studies) None of the included studies assessed child-reported PR. Compared to paracetamol, we are very uncertain if diclofenac: reduces PI at 0 to 2 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.15; 2 studies, 180 children); reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.39; 3 studies, 300 children); reduces nausea/vomiting (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87; 5 studies, 348 children); reduces bleeding events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.62; 5 studies, 332 participants); or reduces SAEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22; 1 study, 60 children). The evidence certainty was very low for all outcomes. Diclofenac versus bupivacaine (five studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. Compared to bupivacaine, we are very uncertain about the effect of diclofenac on nausea/vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.78; 3 studies, 128 children) and SAEs (RR 4.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 88.38; 1 study, 38 children), both very low-certainty evidence. Diclofenac versus active pharmacological comparator (10 studies) We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus any other active pharmacological comparator (dexamethasone, pranoprofen, fluorometholone, oxybuprocaine, flurbiprofen, lignocaine), and for different routes and delivery of diclofenac, due to few and small studies, no reporting of key outcomes, and very low-certainty evidence for the reported outcomes. We are unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We remain uncertain about the efficacy of diclofenac compared to placebo, active comparators, or by different routes of administration, for postoperative pain management in children. This is largely due to authors not reporting on clinically important outcomes; unclear reporting of the trials; or poor trial conduct reducing our confidence in the results. We remain uncertain about diclofenac's safety compared to placebo or active comparators, except for the comparison of diclofenac with opioids: diclofenac probably results in less nausea and vomiting compared with opioids, but more bleeding events. For healthcare providers managing postoperative pain, diclofenac is a COX inhibitor option, along with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Healthcare providers should weigh the benefits and risks based on what is known of their respective pharmacological effects, rather than known efficacy. For surgical interventions in which bleeding or nausea and vomiting are a concern postoperatively, the risks of adverse events using opioids or diclofenac for managing pain should be considered.

Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains.

OBJECTIVES

To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.

MAIN RESULTS

This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Ventilation tubes (grommets) for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. It may cause hearing loss which, when persistent, may lead to developmental delay, social difficulty and poor quality of life. Management includes watchful waiting, autoinflation, medical and surgical treatment. Insertion of ventilation tubes has often been used as the preferred treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of ventilation tubes (grommets) for OME in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials on 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in children (6 months to 12 years) with OME for ≥ 3 months. We included studies that compared ventilation tube (VT) insertion with five comparators: no treatment, watchful waiting (ventilation tubes inserted later, if required), myringotomy, hearing aids and other non-surgical treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise and were: 1) hearing; 2) OME-specific quality of life; 3) persistent tympanic membrane perforation (as a severe adverse effect of the surgery). Secondary outcomes were: 1) persistence of OME; 2) other adverse effects (including tympanosclerosis, VT blockage and pain); 3) receptive language skills; 4) speech development; 5) cognitive development; 6) psychosocial skills; 7) listening skills; 8) generic health-related quality of life; 9) parental stress; 10) vestibular function; 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for key outcomes. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs (2888 children). We considered most of the evidence to be very uncertain, due to wide confidence intervals for the effect estimates, few participants, and a risk of performance and detection bias. Here we report our key outcomes at the longest reported follow-up. There were some limitations to the evidence. No studies investigated the comparison of ventilation tubes versus hearing aids. We did not identify any data on disease-specific quality of life; however, many studies were conducted before the development of specific tools to assess this in otitis media. Short-acting ventilation tubes were used in most studies and thus specific data on the use of long-acting VTs is limited. Finally, we did not identify specific data on the effects of VTs in children at increased risk of OME (e.g. with craniofacial syndromes). Ventilation tubes versus no treatment (four studies) The odds ratio (OR) for a return to normal hearing after 12 months was 1.13 with VTs (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 2.74; 54% versus 51%; 1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At six months, VTs may lead to a large reduction in persistent OME (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.65; 20.4% versus 68.0%; 1 study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the chance of persistent tympanic membrane perforation with VTs at 12 months (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.91; 8.3% versus 9.7%; 1 RCT, 144 participants). Early ventilation tubes versus watchful waiting (six studies) There was little to no difference in the proportion of children whose hearing returned to normal after 8 to 10 years (i.e. by the age of 9 to 13 years) (RR for VTs 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 93% versus 95%; 1 study, 391 participants; very low-certainty evidence). VTs may also result in little to no difference in the risk of persistent OME after 18 months to 6 years (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.74; 15% versus 12%; 3 studies, 584 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool data on persistent perforation. One study showed that VTs may increase the risk of perforation after a follow-up duration of 3.75 years (RR 3.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 32.38; 1 study, 391 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the actual number of children who develop persistent perforation may be low, as demonstrated by another study (1.26%; 1 study, 635 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Ventilation tubes versus non-surgical treatment (one study) One study compared VTs to six months of antibiotics (sulphisoxazole). No data were available on return to normal hearing, but final hearing thresholds were reported. At four months, the mean difference was -5.98 dB HL lower (better) for those receiving VTs, but the evidence is very uncertain (95% CI -9.21 to -2.75; 1 study, 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence was identified regarding persistent OME. VTs may result in a low risk of persistent perforation at 18 months of follow-up (no events reported; narrative synthesis of 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilation tubes versus myringotomy (nine studies) We are uncertain whether VTs may slightly increase the likelihood of returning to normal hearing at 6 to 12 months, since the confidence intervals were wide and included the possibility of no effect (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.53; 74% versus 64%; 2 studies, 132 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After six months, persistent OME may be reduced for those who receive VTs compared to laser myringotomy, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.38; 1 study, 272 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At six months, the risk of persistent perforation is probably similar with the use of VTs or laser myringotomy (narrative synthesis of 6 studies, 581 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be small short- and medium-term improvements in hearing and persistence of OME with VTs, but it is unclear whether these persist after longer follow-up. The RCTs included do not allow us to say when (or how much) VTs improve hearing in any specific child. However, interpretation of the evidence is difficult: many children in the control groups recover spontaneously or receive VTs during follow-up, VTs may block or extrude, and OME may recur. The limited evidence in this review also affects the generalisability/applicability of our findings to situations involving children with underlying conditions (e.g. craniofacial syndromes) or the use of long-acting tubes. Consequently, RCTs may not be the best way to determine whether an intervention is likely to be effective in any individual child. Instead, we must better understand the different OME phenotypes to target interventions to children who will benefit most, and avoid over-treating when spontaneous resolution is likely.

Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) is a determinant of health and important for autonomous decision-making. Migrants are at high risk for limited HL. Improving HL is important for equitable promotion of migrants' health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for improving HL in migrants. To assess whether female or male migrants respond differently to the identified interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran electronic searches to 2 February 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. We also searched trial registries. We used a study filter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (RCT classifier).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs addressing HL either as a concept or its components (access, understand, appraise, apply health information).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and followed the PRISMA-E guidelines. Outcome categories were: a) HL, b) quality of life (QoL), c) knowledge, d) health outcomes, e) health behaviour, f) self-efficacy, g) health service use and h) adverse events. We conducted meta-analysis where possible, and reported the remaining results as a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs and six cluster-RCTs (8249 participants), all conducted in high-income countries. Participants were migrants with a wide range of conditions. All interventions were adapted to culture, language and literacy. We did not find evidence that HL interventions cause harm, but only two studies assessed adverse events (e.g. anxiety). Many studies reported results for short-term assessments (less than six weeks after total programme completion), reported here. For several comparisons, there were also findings at later time points, which are presented in the review text. Compared with no HL intervention (standard care/no intervention) or an unrelated HL intervention (similar intervention but different information topic) Self-management programmes (SMP) probably improve self-efficacy slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.50; 2 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty). SMP may improve HIV-related HL (understanding (mean difference (MD) 4.25, 95% CI 1.32 to 7.18); recognition of HIV terms (MD 3.32, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.36)) (1 study, 69 participants). SMP may slightly improve health behaviours (3 studies, 514 participants), but may have little or no effect on knowledge (2 studies, 321 participants) or subjective health status (MD 0.38, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.89; 1 study, 69 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain of the effects of SMP on QoL, health service use or adverse events due to a lack of evidence. HL skills building courses (HLSBC) may improve knowledge (MD 10.87, 95% CI 5.69 to 16.06; 2 studies, 111 participants) and any generic HL (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75; 2 studies, 229 participants), but may have little or no effect on depression literacy (MD 0.17, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.62) or any health behaviour (2 studies, 229 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain if HLSBC improve QoL, health outcomes, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events, due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence. Audio-/visual education without personal feedback (AVE) probably improves depression literacy (MD 8.62, 95% CI 7.51 to 9.73; 1 study, 202 participants) and health service use (MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.07; 1 study, 157 participants), but probably has little or no effect on health behaviour (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 1 study, 135 participants) (moderate certainty). AVE may improve self-efficacy (MD 3.51, 95% CI 2.53 to 4.49; 1 study, 133 participants) and may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.44, 95% CI -2.56 to 19.44; 2 studies, 293 participants) and intention to seek depression treatment (MD 1.8, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.17), with little or no effect on depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL and adverse events. Adapted medical instruction may improve understanding of health information (3 studies, 478 participants), with little or no effect on medication adherence (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.1; 1 study, 200 participants) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL, health outcomes, knowledge, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events. Compared with written information on the same topic SMP probably improves health numeracy slightly (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.25) and probably improves print literacy (MD 9, 95% CI 2.9 to 15.1; 1 study, 209 participants) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.64; 4 studies, 552 participants) (moderate certainty). SMP may improve any disease-specific HL (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; 4 studies, 955 participants), knowledge (MD 11.45, 95% CI 4.75 to 18.15; 6 studies, 1101 participants) and some health behaviours (4 studies, 797 participants), with little or no effect on health information appraisal (MD 1.15, 95% CI -0.23 to 2.53; 1 study, 329 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain whether SMP improves QoL, health outcomes, health service use or adverse events, due to a lack of evidence or low/very low-certainty evidence. AVE probably has little or no effect on diabetes HL (MD 2, 95% CI -0.15 to 4.15; 1 study, 240 participants), but probably improves information appraisal (MD -9.88, 95% CI -12.87 to -6.89) and application (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.77) (1 study, 608 participants; moderate certainty). AVE may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.35, 95% CI -0.32 to 17.02; low certainty). No short-term evidence was found for QoL, depression, health behaviour, self-efficacy, health service use or adverse events. AVE compared with another AVE We are uncertain whether narrative videos are superior to factual knowledge videos as the evidence is of very low certainty. Gender differences Female migrants' diabetes HL may improve slightly more than that of males, when receiving AVE (MD 5.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.38; 1 study, 118 participants), but we do not know whether female or male migrants benefit differently from other interventions due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adequately powered studies measuring long-term effects (more than six months) of HL interventions in female and male migrants are needed, using well-validated tools and representing various healthcare systems.

Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed term infants

BACKGROUND

Many infants are fed infant formulas to promote growth. Some formulas have a high protein content (≥ 2.5 g per 100 kcal) to accelerate weight gain during the first year of life. The risk-benefit balance of these formulas is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of higher protein intake versus lower protein intake in healthy, formula-fed term infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey, clinical trial registries, and conference proceedings in October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of healthy formula-fed infants (those fed only formula and those given formula as a complementary food). We included infants of any sex or ethnicity who were fed infant formula for at least three consecutive months at any time from birth. We excluded quasi-randomized trials, observational studies, and infants with congenital malformations or serious underlying diseases. We defined high protein content as 2.5 g or more per 100 kcal, and low protein content as less than 1.8 g per 100 kcal (for exclusive formula feeding) or less than 1.7 g per 100 kcal (for complementary formula feeding).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from trials, and a fifth review author resolved discrepancies. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, calculating risk ratios (RRs) or Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs (1185 infants) conducted in high-income countries. Seven trials (1629 infants) compared high-protein formula against standard-protein formula, and four trials (256 infants) compared standard-protein formula against low-protein formula. The longest follow-up was 11 years. High-protein formula versus standard-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy term infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.05 SDs, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.19; P = 0.51, I2 = 61%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score 0.15 SDs, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.35; P = 0.14, I2 = 73%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score -0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; P = 0.20, I2 = 94%; 7 studies, 1629 participants) in the first year of life. We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on the occurrence of overweight (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.51; P = 0.51; 1 study, 1090 participants) or obesity (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.59 to 6.48; P = 0.27; 1 study, 1090 participants) at five years of follow-up. No studies reported all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13; P = 0.44, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first year of life. Standard-protein formula versus low-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.0, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.43; P = 0.99, I2 = 81%; 4 studies, 256 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score -0.01, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.35; P = 0.96, I2 = 73%; 4 studies, 256 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.56; P = 0.54, I2 = 95%; 4 studies, 256 participants) in the first year of life. No studies reported overweight, obesity, or all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (Peto OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.40; P = 0.28, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first four months of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unsure if feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has an effect on undernutrition, overweight, or obesity. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with high-protein formula versus those fed with standard-protein formula. We are unsure if feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has any effect on undernutrition. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with standard-protein formula versus those fed with low-protein formula. The findings of six ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification studies may change the conclusions of this review.

The 3Ranker: An AI-based Algorithm for Finding Non-animal Alternative Methods

The search for existing non-animal alternative methods for use in experiments is currently challenging because of the lack of both comprehensive structured databases and balanced keyword-based search strategies to mine unstructured textual databases. In this paper we describe 3Ranker, which is a fast, keyword-independent algorithm for finding non-animal alternative methods for use in biomedical research. The 3Ranker algorithm was created by using a machine learning approach, consisting of a Random Forest model built on a dataset of 35 million abstracts and constructed with weak supervision, followed by iterative model improvement with expert curated data. We found a satisfactory trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.85-0.95. Trials showed that the AI-based classifier was able to identify articles that describe potential alternatives to animal use, among the thousands of articles returned by generic PubMed queries on dermatitis and Parkinson's disease. Application of the classification models on time series data showed the earlier implementation and acceptance of Three Rs principles in the area of cosmetics and skin research, as compared to the area of neurodegenerative disease research. The 3Ranker algorithm is freely available at www.open3r.org; the future goal is to expand this framework to cover multiple research domains and to enable its broad use by researchers, policymakers, funders and ethical review boards, in order to promote the replacement of animal use in research wherever possible.

Methylxanthine for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Very preterm infants often require respiratory support and are therefore exposed to an increased risk of chronic lung disease and later neurodevelopmental disability. Although methylxanthines are widely used to prevent and treat apnea associated with prematurity and to facilitate extubation, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of different types of methylxanthines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of methylxanthines on the incidence of apnea, death, neurodevelopmental disability, and other longer-term outcomes in preterm infants (1) at risk for or with apnea, or (2) undergoing extubation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trial registers (November 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials in preterm infants, in which methylxanthines (aminophylline, caffeine, or theophylline) were compared to placebo or no treatment for any indication (i.e. prevention of apnea, treatment of apnea, or prevention of re-intubation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies (2705 infants), evaluating the use of methylxanthine in preterm infants for: any indication (one study); prevention of apnea (six studies); treatment of apnea (five studies); and to prevent re-intubation (six studies). Death or major neurodevelopmental disability (DMND) at 18 to 24 months. Only the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity (CAP) study (enrolling 2006 infants) reported on this outcome. Overall, caffeine probably reduced the risk of DMND in preterm infants treated with caffeine for any indication (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.97; risk difference (RD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 10 to 50; 1 study, 1869 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). No other trials reported DMND. Results from the CAP trial regarding DMND at 18 to 24 months are less precise when analyzed based on treatment indication. Caffeine probably results in little or no difference in DMND in infants treated for prevention of apnea (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.09; 1 study, 423 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably results in a slight reduction in DMND in infants treated for apnea of prematurity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.00; NNTB 16, 95% CI 7 to > 1000; 1 study, 767 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) or to prevent re-intubation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.00; NNTB 12, 95% CI 6 to >1000; 1 study, 676 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Death. In the overall analysis of any methylxanthine treatment for any indication, methylxanthine used for any indication probably results in little or no difference in death at hospital discharge (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I2 = 5%; 7 studies, 2289 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. In the CAP trial, caffeine probably reduced the risk of major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; NNTB 16, 95% CI 10 to 50; 1 study, 1869 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), including a reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy or gross motor disability (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; NNTB 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 1 study, 1810 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a marginal reduction in the risk of developmental delay (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.00; NNTB 20, 95% CI 11 to > 1000; 1 study, 1725 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Any apneic episodes, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (< 50% reduction in apnea) (for infants treated with apnea), and need for positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment. Methylxanthine used for any indication probably reduces the occurrence of any apneic episodes (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; I2 = 47%; RD -0.38, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.25; I2 = 49%; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 4; 4 studies, 167 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; RD -0.31, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; I2 = 53%; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 6; 4 studies, 174 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce receipt of positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96; I2 = 0%; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01; I2 = 49%; NNTB 16, 95% CI 9 to 100; 9 studies, 373 infants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic lung disease. Methylxanthine used for any indication reduces chronic lung disease (defined as the use of supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06; I2 = 18%; NNTB 10, 95% CI 7 to 16; 4 studies, 2142 infants; high-certainty evidence). Failure to extubate or the need for re-intubation within one week after initiation of therapy. Methylxanthine used for the prevention of re-intubation probably results in a large reduction in failed extubation compared with no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71; I2 = 0%; RD -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; I2 = 69%; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2 to 6; 6 studies, 197 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Caffeine probably reduces the risk of death, major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months, and the composite outcome DMND at 18 to 24 months. Administration of any methylxanthine to preterm infants for any indication probably leads to a reduction in the risk of any apneic episodes, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, and may reduce receipt of positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment. Methylxanthine used for any indication reduces chronic lung disease (defined as the use of supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age).

Anti-seizure medications for neonates with seizures

BACKGROUND

Newborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. There are several options for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in neonates. However, the ideal choice of first-, second- and third-line ASM is still unclear. Further, many other aspects of seizure management such as whether ASMs should be initiated for only-electrographic seizures and how long to continue the ASM once seizure control is achieved are elusive.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess whether any ASM is more or less effective than an alternative ASM (both ASMs used as first-, second- or third-line treatment) in achieving seizure control and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with seizures. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 2. To assess maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy after achieving seizure control. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 3. To assess treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos and three databases in May 2022 and June 2023. These searches were not limited other than by study design to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included neonates with EEG-confirmed or clinically diagnosed seizures and compared (1) any ASM versus an alternative ASM, (2) maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy, and (3) treatment of clinical or EEG seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence interval (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 trials (1342 infants) in this review. Phenobarbital versus levetiracetam as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) Phenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after first loading dose (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.30; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and after maximal loading dose (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.50; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital when compared to levetiracetam on mortality before discharge (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.52; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.91; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.44; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.76; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Phenobarbital versus phenytoin as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) We are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital versus phenytoin on achieving seizure control after maximal loading dose of ASM (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.72; 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy in clinically diagnosed neonatal seizures (two trials) We are uncertain about the effect of short-term maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy during the hospital stay (but discontinued before discharge) on the risk of repeat seizures before hospital discharge (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01; 373 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Maintenance therapy with ASM compared to no maintenance therapy may have little or no effect on mortality before discharge (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22; 373 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.61; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.12; 108 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 14.72; 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates (two trials) Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation (MD -1871.16, 95% CI -4525.05 to 782.73; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality before discharge (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.27; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.73; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. We report data from the most important comparisons here; readers are directed to Results and Summary of Findings tables for all comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Phenobarbital as a first-line ASM is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after the first loading dose and after the maximal loading dose of ASM (moderate-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital + bumetanide may have little or no difference in achieving seizure control when compared to phenobarbital alone (low-certainty evidence). Limited data and very low-certainty evidence preclude us from drawing any reasonable conclusion on the effect of using one ASM versus another on other short- and long-term outcomes. In neonates who achieve seizure control after the first loading dose of phenobarbital, maintenance therapy compared to no maintenance ASM may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before discharge, mortality by 18 to 24 months, neurodevelopmental disability by 18 to 24 months and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). In neonates with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation, all-cause mortality before discharge and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). All findings of this review apply only to term and late preterm neonates. We need well-designed RCTs for each of the three objectives of this review to improve the precision of the results. These RCTs should use EEG to diagnose seizures and should be adequately powered to assess long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We need separate RCTs evaluating the choice of ASM in preterm infants.

Immunoglobulin treatment for hospitalised infants and young children with respiratory syncytial virus infection

BACKGROUND

Millions of children are hospitalised due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection every year. Treatment is supportive, and current therapies (e.g. inhaled bronchodilators, epinephrine, nebulised hypertonic saline, and corticosteroids) are ineffective or have limited effect. Respiratory syncytial virus immunoglobulin may be used prophylactically to prevent hospital admission from RSV-related illness. It may be considered for the treatment of established severe RSV infection or for treatment in an immunocompromised host, although it is not licensed for this purpose. It is unclear whether immunoglobulins improve outcomes when used as a treatment for established RSV infection in infants and young children admitted to hospital. This is an update of a review first published in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunoglobulins for the treatment of RSV-proven lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in children aged up to three years, admitted to hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

For this 2022 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Specialised Register, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (from inception to 2 December 2022) with no restrictions. We searched two trial registries for ongoing trials (to 2 December 2022) and checked the reference lists of reviews and included articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing immunoglobulins with placebo in hospitalised infants and children aged up to three years with laboratory-diagnosed RSV lower respiratory tract infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed evidence certainty using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we included eight trials involving 906 infants and children aged up to three years. We included one new trial in this update. The immunoglobulin preparations used in these trials included anti-RSV immunoglobulin and the monoclonal antibody preparations palivizumab and motavizumab. Five trials were conducted at single or multiple sites within a single high-income country (four in the USA, one in Qatar). Three trials included study sites in different countries. All three of these trials included study sites in one or more high-income countries (USA, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Qatar), with two trials also including a study site in a middle-income country (Panama). Five of the eight trials were "supported" or "sponsored" by the trial drug manufacturers. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of immunoglobulins on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 5.27; 4 studies, 309 participants). There were four deaths - two amongst 98 children receiving immunoglobulins, and two amongst 98 children receiving placebo. One additional death occurred in a fourth trial, however the study group of the child was not known and the data were not included in the analysis (very low-certainty evidence). The use of immunoglobulins in infants and children admitted to hospital with RSV proven LRTI probably results in little to no difference in the length of hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) -0.13 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.12; 6 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Immunoglobulins may result in little to no difference in the number of children who experience one or more adverse events of any severity or seriousness compared to placebo (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.78; 5 studies, 340 participants; low-certainty evidence) or the number of children who experience one or more adverse events judged by study investigators to be serious in nature, compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.79; 4 studies, 238 participants; low-certainty evidence). Certainty of evidence for secondary outcomes was low. This evidence suggests that use of immunoglobulins results in little to no difference in the need for, or duration of, mechanical ventilation and the need for, or duration of, supplemental oxygen. The use of immunoglobulins does not reduce the need for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and when children are admitted to the ICU results in little to no difference in the duration of ICU stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect of immunoglobulins on mortality. We are moderately certain that use of immunoglobulins in hospitalised infants and children may result in little to no difference in the length of hospitalisation. Immunoglobulins may result in little to no difference in adverse events, the need for or duration of mechanical ventilation, supplemental oxygen, or admission to the intensive care unit, though we are less certain about this evidence and the true effect of immunoglobulins on these outcomes may differ markedly from the estimated effect observed in this review. All trials were conducted in high-income countries, and data from populations in which the rate of death from RSV infection is higher are lacking.

Antibiotics for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. When persistent, it may lead to developmental delay, social difficulty and poor quality of life. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, autoinflation, medical and surgical treatment. Antibiotics are sometimes used to treat any bacteria present in the effusion, or associated biofilms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of oral antibiotics for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies to 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared oral antibiotics with either placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise and were: 1) hearing, 2) otitis media-specific quality of life and 3) anaphylaxis. Secondary outcomes were: 1) persistence of OME, 2) adverse effects, 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial skills, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function and 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 completed studies that met our inclusion criteria (2581 participants). They assessed a variety of oral antibiotics (including penicillins, cephalosporins, macrolides and trimethoprim), with most studies using a 10- to 14-day treatment course. We had some concerns about the risk of bias in all studies included in this review. Here we report our primary outcomes and main secondary outcome, at the longest reported follow-up time. Antibiotics versus placebo We included 11 studies for this comparison, but none reported all of our outcomes of interest and limited meta-analysis was possible. Hearing One study found that more children may return to normal hearing by two months (resolution of the air-bone gap) after receiving antibiotics as compared with placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 9.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51 to 26.18; 20/49 children who received antibiotics returned to normal hearing versus 0/37 who received placebo; 1 study, 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Disease-specific quality of life No studies assessed this outcome. Presence/persistence of OME At 6 to 12 months of follow-up, the use of antibiotics compared with placebo may slightly reduce the number of children with persistent OME, but the confidence intervals were wide, and the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.17; 48% versus 54%; number needed to treat (NNT) 17; 2 studies, 324 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse event: anaphylaxis No studies provided specific data on anaphylaxis. Three of the included studies (448 children) did report adverse events in sufficient detail to assume that no anaphylactic reactions occurred, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics versus no treatment We included eight studies for this comparison, but very limited meta-analysis was possible. Hearing One study found that the use of antibiotics compared to no treatment may result in little to no difference in final hearing threshold at three months (mean difference (MD) -5.38 dB HL, 95% CI -9.12 to -1.64; 1 study, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence). The only data identified on the return to normal hearing were reported at 10 days of follow-up, which we considered to be too short to accurately reflect the efficacy of antibiotics. Disease-specific quality of life No studies assessed this outcome. Presence/persistence of OME Antibiotics may reduce the proportion of children who have persistent OME at up to three months of follow-up, when compared with no treatment (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.80; 6 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse event: anaphylaxis No studies provided specific data on anaphylaxis. Two of the included studies (180 children) did report adverse events in sufficient detail to assume that no anaphylactic reactions occurred, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the use of antibiotics for OME is of low to very low certainty. Although the use of antibiotics compared to no treatment may have a slight beneficial effect on the resolution of OME at up to three months, the overall impact on hearing is very uncertain. The long-term effects of antibiotics are unclear and few of the studies included in this review reported on potential harms. These important endpoints should be considered when weighing up the potential short- and long-term benefits and harms of antibiotic treatment in a condition with a high spontaneous resolution rate.

Adenoidectomy for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. When persistent, it may lead to developmental delay, social difficulty and poor quality of life. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, autoinflation, medical and surgical treatment. Adenoidectomy has often been used as a potential treatment for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of adenoidectomy, either alone or in combination with ventilation tubes (grommets), for OME in children.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared adenoidectomy (alone, or in combination with ventilation tubes) with either no treatment or non-surgical treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes (determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise): 1) hearing, 2) otitis media-specific quality of life, 3) haemorrhage.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

1) persistence of OME, 2) adverse effects, 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial skills, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function, 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (1785 children). Many of the studies used concomitant interventions for all participants, including insertion of ventilation tubes or myringotomy. All included studies had at least some concerns regarding the risk of bias. We report results for our main outcome measures at the longest available follow-up. We did not identify any data on disease-specific quality of life for any of the comparisons. Further details of additional outcomes and time points are reported in the review. 1) Adenoidectomy (with or without myringotomy) versus no treatment/watchful waiting (three studies) After 12 months there was little difference in the proportion of children whose hearing had returned to normal, but the evidence was very uncertain (adenoidectomy 68%, no treatment 70%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.46; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50; 1 study, 42 participants). There is a risk of haemorrhage from adenoidectomy, but the absolute risk appears small (1/251 receiving adenoidectomy compared to 0/229, Peto odds ratio (OR) 6.77, 95% CI 0.13 to 342.54; 1 study, 480 participants; moderate certainty evidence). The risk of persistent OME may be slightly lower after two years in those receiving adenoidectomy (65% versus 73%), but again the difference was small (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; NNTB 13; 3 studies, 354 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 2) Adenoidectomy (with or without myringotomy) versus non-surgical treatment No studies were identified for this comparison. 3) Adenoidectomy and bilateral ventilation tubes versus bilateral ventilation tubes (four studies) There was a slight increase in the proportion of ears with a return to normal hearing after six to nine months (57% adenoidectomy versus 42% without, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.89; NNTB 7; 1 study, 127 participants (213 ears); very low-certainty evidence). Adenoidectomy may give an increased risk of haemorrhage, but the absolute risk appears small, and the evidence was uncertain (2/416 with adenoidectomy compared to 0/375 in the control group, Peto OR 6.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 107.18; 2 studies, 791 participants). The risk of persistent OME was similar for both groups (82% adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes compared to 85% ventilation tubes alone, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07; very low-certainty evidence). 4) Adenoidectomy and unilateral ventilation tube versus unilateral ventilation tube (two studies) Slightly more children returned to normal hearing after adenoidectomy, but the confidence intervals were wide (57% versus 46%, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.96; NNTB 9; 1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fewer children may have persistent OME after 12 months, but again the confidence intervals were wide (27.2% compared to 40.5%, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.29; NNTB 8; 1 study, 74 participants). We did not identify any data on haemorrhage. 5) Adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes versus no treatment/watchful waiting (two studies) We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, after two years, the mean difference in hearing threshold for those allocated to adenoidectomy was -3.40 dB (95% CI -5.54 to -1.26; 1 study, 211 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a small reduction in the proportion of children with persistent OME after two years, but the evidence was very uncertain (82% compared to 90%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; NNTB 13; 1 study, 232 participants). We noted that many children in the watchful waiting group had also received surgery by this time point. 6) Adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes versus non-surgical treatment No studies were identified for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When assessed with the GRADE approach, the evidence for adenoidectomy in children with OME is very uncertain. Adenoidectomy may reduce the persistence of OME, although evidence about the effect of this on hearing is unclear. For patients and carers, a return to normal hearing is likely to be important, but few studies measured this outcome. We did not identify any evidence on disease-specific quality of life. There were few data on adverse effects, in particular postoperative bleeding. The risk of haemorrhage appears to be small, but should be considered when choosing a treatment strategy for children with OME. Future studies should aim to determine which children are most likely to benefit from treatment, rather than offering interventions to all children.

Impact of Allocation Concealment and Blinding in Trials Addressing Treatments for COVID-19: A Methods Study

We aimed to assess the impact of allocation concealment and blinding on the results of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) trials, using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database (to February 2022). We identified 488 randomized trials comparing drug therapeutics with placebo or standard care in patients with COVID-19. We performed random-effects meta-regressions comparing the results of trials with and without allocation concealment and blinding of health-care providers and patients. We found that, compared with trials with allocation concealment, trials without allocation concealment may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation, but results were imprecise. We did not find compelling evidence that, compared with trials with blinding, trials without blinding produce consistently different results for mortality, mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospitalization. We found that trials without blinding may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for hospitalizations and duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not find compelling evidence that COVID-19 trials in which health-care providers and patients are blinded produce different results from trials without blinding, but trials without allocation concealment estimate treatments to be more beneficial compared with trials with allocation concealment. Our study suggests that lack of blinding may not always bias results but that evidence users should remain skeptical of trials without allocation concealment.

Caffeine versus other methylxanthines for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Methylxanthines, including caffeine, theophylline, and aminophylline, work as stimulants of the respiratory drive, and decrease apnea of prematurity, a developmental disorder common in preterm infants. In particular, caffeine has been reported to improve important clinical outcomes, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and neurodevelopmental disability. However, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy of caffeine compared to other methylxanthines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of caffeine compared to aminophylline or theophylline in preterm infants at risk of apnea, with apnea, or in the peri-extubation phase.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov in February 2023. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs Participants: infants born before 34 weeks of gestation for prevention and extubation trials, and infants born before 37 weeks of gestation for treatment trials Intervention and comparison: caffeine versus theophylline or caffeine versus aminophylline. We included all doses and duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical data, and mean, standard deviation, and mean difference for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials enrolling 1776 preterm infants. The indication for treatment was prevention of apnea in three studies, treatment of apnea in 13 studies, and extubation management in three studies. In three studies, there were multiple indications for treatment, and in one study, the indication for treatment was unclear. In 19 included studies, the infants had a mean gestational age between 28 and 32 weeks and a mean birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. One study's participants had a mean gestational age of more than 32 weeks, and two studies had participants with a mean birth weight of 1500 g or more. Caffeine administrated for any indication may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge compared to other methylxanthines (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 2 studies, 396 infants; low-certainty evidence). Only one study enrolling 79 infants reported components of the outcome moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 26 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on cognitive developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.01; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on language developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.58; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.12; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on motor developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.96; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.07; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on visual and hearing impairment compared to other methylxanthines. At 24 months of age, visual impairment was seen in 8 out of 11 infants and 10 out of 11 infants in the caffeine and other methylxanthines groups, respectively. Hearing impairment was seen in 2 out of 5 infants and 1 out of 1 infant in the caffeine and other methylxanthines groups, respectively. No studies reported the outcomes cerebral palsy, gross motor disability, and mental development. Compared to other methylxanthines, caffeine may result in little to no difference in BPD/chronic lung disease, defined as 28 days of oxygen exposure at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.11; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09; 3 studies, 481 infants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on side effects (tachycardia, agitation, or feed intolerance) leading to a reduction in dose or withholding of methylxanthines compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.02; 1 study, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Caffeine may result in little to no difference in duration of hospital stay compared to other methylxanthines (median (interquartile range): caffeine 43 days (27.5 to 61.5); other methylxanthines 39 days (28 to 55)). No studies reported the outcome seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although caffeine has been shown to improve important clinical outcomes, in the few studies that compared caffeine to other methylxanthines, there might be little to no difference in mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and duration of hospital stay. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine compared to other methylxanthines on long-term development and side effects. Although caffeine or other methylxanthines are widely used in preterm infants, there is little direct evidence to support the choice of which methylxanthine to use. More research is needed, especially on extremely preterm infants born before 28 weeks of gestation. Data from four ongoing studies might provide more evidence on the effects of caffeine or other methylxanthines.

Autoinflation for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. When persistent, it may lead to behavioural problems and a delay in expressive language skills. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, medical, surgical and mechanical treatment. Autoinflation is a self-administered technique, which aims to ventilate the middle ear and encourage middle ear fluid clearance by providing a positive pressure of air in the nose and nasopharynx (using a nasal balloon or other handheld device). This positive pressure (sometimes combined with simultaneous swallow) encourages opening of the Eustachian tube and may help ventilate the middle ear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy (benefits and harms) of autoinflation for the treatment of otitis media with effusion in children.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared autoinflation with either watchful waiting (no treatment), non-surgical treatment or ventilation tubes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise and were: 1) hearing, 2) OME-specific quality of life and 3) pain and distress. Secondary outcomes were: 1) persistence of OME, 2) other adverse effects (including eardrum perforation), 3) compliance or adherence to treatment, 4) receptive language skills, 5) speech development, 6) cognitive development, 7) psychosocial skills, 8) listening skills, 9) generic health-related quality of life, 10) parental stress, 11) vestibular function and 12) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 completed studies that met our inclusion criteria (1036 participants). The majority of studies included children aged between 3 and 11 years. Most were carried out in Europe or North America, and they were conducted in both hospital and community settings. All compared autoinflation (using a variety of different methods and devices) to no treatment. Most studies required children to carry out autoinflation two to three times per day, for between 2 and 12 weeks. The outcomes were predominantly assessed just after the treatment phase had been completed. Here we report the effects at the longest follow-up for our main outcome measures. Return to normal hearing The evidence was very uncertain regarding the effect of autoinflation on the return to normal hearing. The longest duration of follow-up was 11 weeks. At this time point, the risk ratio was 2.67 in favour of autoinflation (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 4.12; 85% versus 32%; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 2; 1 study, 94 participants), but the certainty of the evidence was very low. Disease-specific quality of life Autoinflation may result in a moderate improvement in quality of life (related to otitis media) after short-term follow-up. One study assessed quality of life using the Otitis Media Questionnaire-14 (OMQ-14) at three months of follow-up. Results were reported as the number of standard deviations above or below zero difference, with a range from -3 (better) to +3 (worse). The mean difference was -0.42 lower (better) for those who received autoinflation (95% CI -0.62 to -0.22; 1 study, 247 participants; low-certainty evidence; the authors report a change of 0.3 as clinically meaningful). Pain and distress caused by the procedure Autoinflation may result in an increased risk of ear pain, but the evidence was very uncertain. One study assessed this outcome, and identified a risk ratio of 3.50 for otalgia in those who received autoinflation, although the overall occurrence of pain was low (95% CI 0.74 to 16.59; 4.4% versus 1.3%; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 32; 1 study, 320 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Persistence of OME The evidence suggests that autoinflation may slightly reduce the persistence of OME at three months. Four studies were included, and the risk ratio for persistence of OME was 0.88 for those receiving autoinflation (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; 4 studies, 483 participants; absolute reduction of 89 people per 1000 with persistent OME; NNTB 12; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All the evidence we identified was of low or very low certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the estimated effects. However, the data suggest that autoinflation may have a beneficial effect on OME-specific quality of life and persistence of OME in the short term, but the effect is uncertain for return to normal hearing and adverse effects. The potential benefits should be weighed against the inconvenience of regularly carrying out autoinflation, and the possible risk of ear pain.

A scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nurses comprise the largest portion of the healthcare workforce worldwide. However, nurse representation in the leadership of clinical research and research funding is largely unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established to provide a coordinated network, focussed on building research capacity in nursing and midwifery. To support this work, this scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials was conducted to summarise research activity, as well as highlight future research directions, gaps and resources. Midwife-led trials will be reported elsewhere.

AIM

To quantify number, type and quality of nurse-led randomised controlled trials registered between 2000-2021.

DESIGN

A scoping review of RCTs.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Emcare and Scopus were searched from 2000 to August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework using the PRISMA-ScR.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 188 nurse-led publications and 279 registered randomised controlled trials. Multiple trials had the same nurse leaders. There were more registrations than publications. Publications were predominantly of high methodological quality; however, there was a reliance on active controls and blinding was low. Trial registrations indicate that universities and hospital/healthcare organisations were the major sources of funding, while publications indicate that Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council were the main funding bodies.

CONCLUSION

A small number of high-quality, large-scale, nationally funded randomised controlled trials were identified, with a larger number of locally funded small trials. There was a disparity between the number of registered trials and those published. Additional infrastructure, funding and career frameworks are needed to enable nurses to design, conduct and publish clinical trials that inform the health system and improve health outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Research initiated and led by nurses has the potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and current nurse-led research is of high methodological quality; however, there were very few nurse-led RCTs, conducted by a small pool of nurse researchers. This gap highlights the need for support in the design, conduct and publishing of nurse-led RCTs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This is a scoping review; therefore, patient or public contribution is not applicable.

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

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

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

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with overweight or obesity

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Follow-up focused on psychological intervention initiated after intensive care unit in adult patients and informal caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychological dysfunction is one of the considerable health-related outcomes among critically-ill patients and their informal caregivers. Follow-up of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors has been conducted in a variety of different ways, with different timing after discharge, targets of interest (physical, psychological, social) and measures used. Of diverse ICU follow-up, the effects of follow-ups which focused on psychological interventions are unknown. Our research question was whether follow-up with patients and their informal caregivers after ICU discharge improved mental health compared to usual care. We published a protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis in https://www.protocols.io/ (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bvjwn4pe). We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo from their inception to May 2022. We included randomized controlled trials for follow-ups after ICU discharge and focused on psychological intervention for critically ill adult patients and their informal caregivers. We synthesized primary outcomes, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and adverse events using the random-effects method. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. From the 10,471 records, we identified 13 studies (n = 3, 366) focusing on patients and four (n = 538) focusing on informal caregivers. ICU follow-up for patients resulted in little to no difference in the prevalence of depression (RR 0.89, 95% CI [0.59-1.34]; low-certainty evidence) and PTSD (RR 0.84, 95% CI [0.55-1.30]; low-certainty evidence) among patients; however, it increased the prevalence of depression (RR 1.58 95% CI [1.01-2.46]; very low-certainty evidence), PTSD (RR 1.36, 95% CI [0.91-2.03]; very low-certainty evidence) among informal caregivers. The evidence for the effect of ICU follow-up on adverse events among patients was insufficient. Eligible studies for informal caregivers did not define any adverse event. The effect of follow-ups after ICU discharge that focused on psychological intervention should be uncertain.

The use of artificial intelligence for automating or semi-automating biomedical literature analyses: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a decision-making process based on the conscious and judicious use of the best available scientific evidence. However, the exponential increase in the amount of information currently available likely exceeds the capacity of human-only analysis. In this context, artificial intelligence (AI) and its branches such as machine learning (ML) can be used to facilitate human efforts in analyzing the literature to foster EBM. The present scoping review aimed to examine the use of AI in the automation of biomedical literature survey and analysis with a view to establishing the state-of-the-art and identifying knowledge gaps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comprehensive searches of the main databases were performed for articles published up to June 2022 and studies were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted from the included articles and the findings categorized.

RESULTS

The total number of records retrieved from the databases was 12,145, of which 273 were included in the review. Classification of the studies according to the use of AI in evaluating the biomedical literature revealed three main application groups, namely assembly of scientific evidence (n = 127; 47%), mining the biomedical literature (n = 112; 41%) and quality analysis (n = 34; 12%). Most studies addressed the preparation of systematic reviews, while articles focusing on the development of guidelines and evidence synthesis were the least frequent. The biggest knowledge gap was identified within the quality analysis group, particularly regarding methods and tools that assess the strength of recommendation and consistency of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our review shows that, despite significant progress in the automation of biomedical literature surveys and analyses in recent years, intense research is needed to fill knowledge gaps on more difficult aspects of ML, deep learning and natural language processing, and to consolidate the use of automation by end-users (biomedical researchers and healthcare professionals).

Systematic online living evidence summaries: emerging tools to accelerate evidence synthesis

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are the cornerstones of evidence-based decision making and priority setting. However, traditional systematic reviews are time and labour intensive, limiting their feasibility to comprehensively evaluate the latest evidence in research-intensive areas. Recent developments in automation, machine learning and systematic review technologies have enabled efficiency gains. Building upon these advances, we developed Systematic Online Living Evidence Summaries (SOLES) to accelerate evidence synthesis. In this approach, we integrate automated processes to continuously gather, synthesise and summarise all existing evidence from a research domain, and report the resulting current curated content as interrogatable databases via interactive web applications. SOLES can benefit various stakeholders by (i) providing a systematic overview of current evidence to identify knowledge gaps, (ii) providing an accelerated starting point for a more detailed systematic review, and (iii) facilitating collaboration and coordination in evidence synthesis.

Deep Learning to Refine the Identification of High-Quality Clinical Research Articles from the Biomedical Literature: Performance Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Identifying practice-ready evidence-based journal articles in medicine is a challenge due to the sheer volume of biomedical research publications. Newer approaches to support evidence discovery apply deep learning techniques to improve the efficiency and accuracy of classifying sound evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how well deep learning models using variants of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) identify high-quality evidence with high clinical relevance from the biomedical literature for consideration in clinical practice.

METHODS

We fine-tuned variations of BERT models (BERT_BASE, BioBERT, BlueBERT, and PubMedBERT) and compared their performance in classifying articles based on methodological quality criteria. The dataset used for fine-tuning models included titles and abstracts of >160,000 PubMed records from 2012-2020 that were of interest to human health which had been manually labeled based on meeting established critical appraisal criteria for methodological rigor. The data was randomly divided into 80:10:10 sets for training, validating, and testing. In addition to using the full unbalanced set, the training data was randomly undersampled into four balanced datasets to assess performance and select the best performing model. For each of the four sets, one model that maintained sensitivity (recall) at ≥99% was selected and were ensembled. The best performing model was evaluated in a prospective, blinded test and applied to an established reference standard, the Clinical Hedges dataset.

RESULTS

In training, three of the four selected best performing models were trained using BioBERT_BASE. The ensembled model did not boost performance compared with the best individual model. Hence a solo BioBERT-based model (named DL-PLUS) was selected for further testing as it was computationally more efficient. The model had high recall (>99%) and 60% to 77% specificity in a prospective evaluation conducted with blinded research associates and saved >60% of the work required to identify high quality articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep learning using pretrained language models and a large dataset of classified articles produced models with improved specificity while maintaining >99% recall. The resulting DL-PLUS model identifies high-quality, clinically relevant articles from PubMed at the time of publication. The model improves the efficiency of a literature surveillance program, which allows for faster dissemination of appraised research.

Interventions from pregnancy to two years after birth for parents experiencing complex post-traumatic stress disorder and/or with childhood experience of maltreatment

BACKGROUND

Acceptable, effective and feasible support strategies (interventions) for parents experiencing complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) symptoms or with a history of childhood maltreatment may offer an opportunity to support parental recovery, reduce the risk of intergenerational transmission of trauma and improve life-course trajectories for children and future generations. However, evidence relating to the effect of interventions has not been synthesised to provide a comprehensive review of available support strategies. This evidence synthesis is critical to inform further research, practice and policy approaches in this emerging area.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions provided to support parents who were experiencing CPTSD symptoms or who had experienced childhood maltreatment (or both), on parenting capacity and parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2021 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, together with checking references and contacting experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All variants of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention delivered in the perinatal period designed to support parents experiencing CPTSD symptoms or with a history of childhood maltreatment (or both), to any active or inactive control. Primary outcomes were parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing and parenting capacity between pregnancy and up to two years postpartum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion, extracted data using a pre-designed data extraction form, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) for outcomes using a single measure, and standardised mean difference (SMD) for outcomes using multiple measures, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data. All data are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We undertook meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included evidence from 1925 participants in 15 RCTs that investigated the effect of 17 interventions. All included studies were published after 2005. Interventions included seven parenting interventions, eight psychological interventions and two service system approaches. The studies were funded by major research councils, government departments and philanthropic/charitable organisations. All evidence was of low or very low certainty. Parenting interventions Evidence was very uncertain from a study (33 participants) assessing the effects of a parenting intervention compared to attention control on trauma-related symptoms, and psychological wellbeing symptoms (postpartum depression), in mothers who had experienced childhood maltreatment and were experiencing current parenting risk factors. Evidence suggested that parenting interventions may improve parent-child relationships slightly compared to usual service provision (SMD 0.45, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.96; I2 = 60%; 2 studies, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between parenting interventions and usual perinatal service in parenting skills including nurturance, supportive presence and reciprocity (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 149 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of parenting interventions on parents' substance use, relationship quality or self-harm. Psychological interventions Psychological interventions may result in little or no difference in trauma-related symptoms compared to usual care (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.31; I2 = 39%; 4 studies, 247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Psychological interventions may make little or no difference compared to usual care to depression symptom severity (8 studies, 507 participants, low-certainty evidence, SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.03; I2 = 63%). An interpersonally focused cognitive behavioural analysis system of psychotherapy may slightly increase the number of pregnant women who quit smoking compared to usual smoking cessation therapy and prenatal care (189 participants, low-certainty evidence). A psychological intervention may slightly improve parents' relationship quality compared to usual care (1 study, 67 participants, low-certainty evidence). Benefits for parent-child relationships were very uncertain (26 participants, very low-certainty evidence), while there may be a slight improvement in parenting skills compared to usual care (66 participants, low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of psychological interventions on parents' self-harm. Service system approaches One service system approach assessed the effect of a financial empowerment education programme, with and without trauma-informed peer support, compared to usual care for parents with low incomes. The interventions increased depression slightly (52 participants, low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of service system interventions on parents' trauma-related symptoms, substance use, relationship quality, self-harm, parent-child relationships or parenting skills.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to improve parenting capacity or parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing in parents experiencing CPTSD symptoms or who have experienced childhood maltreatment (or both). This lack of methodological rigour and high risk of bias made it difficult to interpret the findings of this review. Overall, results suggest that parenting interventions may slightly improve parent-child relationships but have a small, unimportant effect on parenting skills. Psychological interventions may help some women stop smoking in pregnancy, and may have small benefits on parents' relationships and parenting skills. A financial empowerment programme may slightly worsen depression symptoms. While potential beneficial effects were small, the importance of a positive effect in a small number of parents must be considered when making treatment and care decisions. There is a need for further high-quality research into effective strategies for this population.

Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices

Objectives

Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies.

Methods

Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination.

Results

Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness.

Conclusions

The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.

Caffeine dosing regimens in preterm infants with or at risk for apnea of prematurity

BACKGROUND

Very preterm infants often require respiratory support and are therefore exposed to an increased risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (chronic lung disease) and later neurodevelopmental disability. Caffeine is widely used to prevent and treat apnea (temporal cessation of breathing) associated with prematurity and facilitate extubation. Though widely recognized dosage regimes have been used for decades, higher doses have been suggested to further improve neonatal outcomes. However, observational studies suggest that higher doses may be associated with harm.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of higher versus standard doses of caffeine on mortality and major neurodevelopmental disability in preterm infants with (or at risk of) apnea, or peri-extubation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov in May 2022. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing high-dose to standard-dose strategies in preterm infants. High-dose strategies were defined as a high-loading dose (more than 20 mg of caffeine citrate/kg) or a high-maintenance dose (more than 10 mg of caffeine citrate/kg/day). Standard-dose strategies were defined as a standard-loading dose (20 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg) or a standard-maintenance dose (10 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg/day). We specified three additional comparisons according to the indication for commencing caffeine: 1) prevention trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk for apnea; 2) treatment trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation, with signs of apnea; 3) extubation trials: preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, prior to planned extubation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.  MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials enrolling 894 very preterm infants (reported in Comparison 1, i.e. any indication). Two studies included infants for apnea prevention (Comparison 2), four studies for apnea treatment (Comparison 3) and two for extubation management (Comparison 4); in one study, indication for caffeine administration was both apnea treatment and extubation management (reported in Comparison 1, Comparison 3 and Comparison 4). In the high-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 30 mg/kg to 80 mg/kg, and 12 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg, respectively; in the standard-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 6 mg/kg to 25 mg/kg, and 3 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg, respectively. Two studies had three study groups: infants were randomized in three different doses (two of them matched our definition of high dose and one matched our definition of standard dose); high-dose caffeine and standard-dose caffeine were compared to theophylline administration (the latter is included in a separate review). Six of the seven included studies compared high-loading and high-maintenance dose to standard-loading and standard-maintenance dose, whereas in one study standard-loading dose and high-maintenance dose was compared to standard-loading dose and standard-maintenance dose. High-dose caffeine strategies (administration for any indication) may have little or no effect on mortality prior to hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence of interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.38; risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 723 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only one study enrolling 74 infants reported major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged three to five years (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.24; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.13; 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. Five studies reported bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.02; number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 13; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 723 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose caffeine strategies may have little or no effect on side effects (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.23; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 593 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for duration of hospital stay (data reported in three studies could not be pooled in meta-analysis because outcomes were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges) and seizures (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.53; RD 0.14, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.36; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We identified three ongoing trials conducted in China, Egypt, and New Zealand.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-dose caffeine strategies in preterm infants may have little or no effect on reducing mortality prior to hospital discharge or side effects. We are very uncertain whether high-dose caffeine strategies improves major neurodevelopmental disability, duration of hospital stay or seizures. No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. High-dose caffeine strategies probably reduce the rate of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Recently completed and future trials should report long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of children exposed to different caffeine dosing strategies in the neonatal period. Data from extremely preterm infants are needed, as this population is exposed to the highest risk for mortality and morbidity. However, caution is required when administering high doses in the first hours of life, when the risk for intracranial bleeding is highest. Observational studies might provide useful information regarding potential harms of the highest doses.

Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain clinical management in neonates has always been a challenging medical issue. Worldwide, several systemic opioid regimens are available for pediatricians, neonatologists, and general practitioners to control pain in neonates undergoing surgical procedures. However, the most effective and safe regimen is still unknown in the current body of literature.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of different regimens of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates submitted to surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability. Potentially assessed regimens might include: different doses of the same opioid, different routes of administration of the same opioid, continuous infusion versus bolus administration, or 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were conducted in June 2022 using the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], PubMed, and CINAHL. Trial registration records were identified via CENTRAL and an independent search of the ISRCTN registry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, cluster-randomized, and cross-over controlled trials evaluating systemic opioid regimens' effects on postoperative pain in neonates (pre-term or full-term). We considered suitable for inclusion: I) studies evaluating different doses of the same opioid; 2) studies evaluating different routes of administration of the same opioid; 3) studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuous infusion versus bolus infusion; and 4) studies establishing an assessment of an 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

According to Cochrane methods, two investigators independently screened retrieved records, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. We stratified meta-analysis by the type of intervention: studies evaluating the use of opioids for postoperative pain in neonates through continuous infusion versus bolus infusion and studies assessing the 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), median, and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous data. Finally, we used the GRADEpro approach for primary outcomes to evaluate the quality of the evidence across included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review, we included seven randomized controlled clinical trials (504 infants) from 1996 to 2020. We identified no studies comparing different doses of the same opioid, or different routes. The administration of continuous opioid infusion versus bolus administration of opioids was evaluated in six studies, while one study compared 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled' administration of morphine given by parents or nurses. Overall, the effectiveness of continuous infusion of opioids over bolus infusion as measured by the visual analog scale (MD 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.23; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0); or using the COMFORT scale (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.75; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0), remains unclear due to study designs' limitations, such as the unclear risk of attrition, reporting bias, and imprecision among reported results (very low certainty of the evidence).  None of the included studies reported data on other clinically important outcomes such as all-cause mortality rate during hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, the incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity or intraventricular hemorrhage, and cognitive- and educational-related outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on continuous infusion compared to intermittent boluses of systemic opioids. We are uncertain whether continuous opioid infusion reduces pain compared with intermittent opioid boluses; none of the studies reported the other primary outcomes of this review, i.e. all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, significant neurodevelopmental disability, or cognitive and educational outcomes among children older than five years old. Only one small study reported on morphine infusion with parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. No studies reported if any harms occurred. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia or hypotension. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Non-opioid analgesics for procedural pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia.  The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs.  As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India.  NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 μg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 μg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 μg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 μg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.

Caffeine versus other methylxanthines for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of caffeine compared to aminophylline or theophylline in preterm infants at risk of apnea, with apnea, or in the peri‐extubation phase.

Postnatal phenobarbital for the prevention of intraventricular haemorrhage in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) is a major complication of preterm birth. Large haemorrhages are associated with a high risk of disability and hydrocephalus. Instability of blood pressure and cerebral blood in the newborn flow are postulated as causative factors. Another mechanism may involve reperfusion damage from oxygen free radicals. It has been suggested that phenobarbital stabilises blood pressure and may protect against free radicals. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2007 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the postnatal administration of phenobarbital in preterm infants at risk of developing IVH compared to control (i.e. no intervention or placebo).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL and clinical trial registries in January 2022. A new, more sensitive search strategy was developed, and searches were conducted without date limits.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in which phenobarbital was given within the first 24 hours of life to preterm infants identified as being at risk of IVH because of gestational age below 34 weeks, birth weight below 1500 g or respiratory failure. Phenobarbital was compared to no intervention or placebo. We excluded infants with serious congenital malformations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all grades of IVH and severe IVH (i.e. grade III and IV); secondary outcomes were ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus, hypotension, pneumothorax, hypercapnia, acidosis, mechanical ventilation, neurodevelopmental impairment and death. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (792 infants). The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in the incidence of IVH of any grade compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.19; risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; I² for RD = 65%; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence) and in severe IVH (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on posthaemorrhagic ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.26; 4 RCTs, 271 participants; very low certainty evidence), mild neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.17; 1RCT, 101 participants; very low certainty evidence), and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.82; 2 RCTs, 153 participants; very low certainty evidence). Phenobarbital may result in little to no difference in death before discharge (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; 9 RCTs, 740 participants; low certainty evidence) and mortality during study period (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence) compared with control. We identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in the incidence of IVH (any grade or severe) compared with control (i.e. no intervention or placebo). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of phenobarbital on ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus and on neurodevelopmental impairment. The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in death before discharge and all deaths during the study period compared with control. Since 1993, no randomised studies have been published on phenobarbital for the prevention of IVH in preterm infants, and no trials are ongoing. The effects of postnatal phenobarbital might be assessed in infants with both neonatal seizures and IVH, in both randomised and observational studies. The assessment of benefits and harms should include long-term outcomes.

Systemic opioids versus other analgesics and sedatives for postoperative pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates may undergo surgery because of malformations such as diaphragmatic hernia, gastroschisis, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, or complications of prematurity, such as necrotizing enterocolitis, spontaneous intestinal perforation, and retinopathy of prematurity that require surgical treatment. Options for treatment of postoperative pain include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. The assessment of the effects of opioids is of utmost importance, especially for neonates in substantial pain during the postoperative period.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates who underwent surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability compared to no intervention, placebo, non-pharmacological interventions, different types of opioids, or other drugs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed and CINAHL in May 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov, and ICTRP trial registries. We searched conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for RCTs and quasi-RCTs.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days with postoperative pain where systemic opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no intervention; 2) non-pharmacological interventions; 3) different types of opioids; or 4) other drugs.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, and cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs enrolling 331 infants in four countries across different continents. Most studies considered patients undergoing large or medium surgical procedures (including major thoracic or abdominal surgery), who potentially required pain control through opioid administration after surgery. The randomized trials did not consider patients undergoing minor surgery (including inguinal hernia repair) and those individuals exposed to opioids before the beginning of the trial. Two RCTs compared opioids with placebo; one fentanyl with tramadol; and one morphine with paracetamol. No meta-analyses could be performed because the included RCTs reported no more than three outcomes within the prespecified comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes due to imprecision of the estimates (downgrade by two levels) and study limitations (downgrade by one level).  Comparison 1: opioids versus no treatment or placebo Two trials were included in this comparison, comparing either tramadol or tapentadol with placebo. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tramadol compared with placebo on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.70; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05, 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.  Comparison 2: opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions No trials were included in this comparison. Comparison 3: head-to-head comparisons of different opioids One trial comparing fentanyl with tramadol was included in this comparison. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fentanyl compared with tramadol on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.64; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13, 171 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.  Comparison 4: opioids versus other analgesics and sedatives One trial comparing morphine with paracetamol was included in this comparison. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine compared with paracetamol on COMFORT pain scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.05; 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable).  No data were reported on the other critical outcomes, i.e. major neurodevelopmental disability; cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization; retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence is available on opioid administration for postoperative pain in newborn infants compared to either placebo, other opioids, or paracetamol. We are uncertain whether tramadol reduces mortality compared to placebo; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether fentanyl reduces mortality compared to tramadol; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether morphine reduces pain compared to paracetamol; none of the studies reported major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We identified no studies comparing opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions.

Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically performed as one-off evaluations and can potentially become out-of-date due to the availability of new data, new comparators, or other factors. Recently, living approaches have been applied to systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to enable evidence syntheses to be updated more easily. In this paper, we provide a definition for 'Living HTA' where such a living approach could be applied to the entire HTA process. Living HTA could involve performing regular or scheduled updates using a traditional manual approach, or indeed in a semi-automated manner leveraging recent technological innovations that automate parts of the HTA process. The practical implementation of living HTA using both approaches (i.e., manual approach and using semi-automation) is described along with the likely issues and challenges with planning and implementing a living HTA process. The time, resources and additional considerations outlined may prohibit living HTA from becoming the norm for every evaluation; however, scenarios where living HTA would be particularly beneficial are discussed.

Antibiotics for chronic pulmonary infection in children with a neurodisability (neurodevelopmental disorder)

BACKGROUND

'Neurodisability' refers to a group of conditions that result primarily from a neurological problem (e.g. cerebral palsy), neuromuscular problem (e.g. a muscular dystrophy) or developmental problems (e.g. developmental impairment, Down syndrome). Children and young people with these conditions may have similar problems with mobility, feeding and airway clearance. Chest and breathing problems (including pulmonary infections) are commonly experienced by children and young people with neurodisabilities and are often a cause for them requiring hospital care. For those who are unable to completely clear their airway of secretions, or have frequent infections, pulmonary infections may not be able to be completely eradicated and therefore become chronic. It is unclear what treatment is best for children and young people in this position.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of antibiotic treatment for chronic pulmonary infection in children and young people living with a neurodisability, including quality-of-life measures, effects on hospitalisation and healthcare contacts.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Register of Trials (CARIGRT), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu) and three trials registries up to 8 February 2022. Additionally, we identified related systematic reviews through Epistemonikos.org (8 February 2022) and searched reference lists of these.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of antibiotic therapy for chronic pulmonary infection in children and young people up to the age of 18 living with a neurodisability were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors screened results of the searches against predetermined inclusion criteria, resolving any discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 1968 independent records through our searches, of which we assessed six full-text articles for eligibility. We identified one ongoing study as well as one related substudy but did not identify any completed studies eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this systematic review highlight a lack of evidence in the antibiotic treatment of chronic pulmonary infection in children and young people up to the age of 18 living with a neurodisability. Further research examining this topic is therefore required.

Reducing Literature Screening Workload With Machine Learning

Abstract. In our era of accelerated accumulation of knowledge, the manual screening of literature for eligibility is increasingly becoming too labor-intensive for summarizing the current state of knowledge in a timely manner. Recent advances in machine learning and natural language processing promise to reduce the screening workload by automatically detecting unseen references with a high probability of inclusion. As a variety of tools have been developed, the current review provides an overview of their characteristics and performance. A systematic search in various databases yielded 488 eligible reports, revealing 15 tools for screening automation that differed in methodology, features, and accessibility. For the review on the performance of screening tools, 21 studies could be included. In comparison to sampling records randomly, active screening with prioritization approximately halves the screening workload. However, a comparison of tools under equal or at least similar conditions is needed to derive clear recommendations.

Screening for in vitro systematic reviews: a comparison of screening methods and training of a machine learning classifier

OBJECTIVE

Existing strategies to identify relevant studies for systematic review may not perform equally well across research domains. We compare four approaches based on either human or automated screening of either title and abstract or full text, and report the training of a machine learning algorithm to identify in vitro studies from bibliographic records.

METHODS

We used a systematic review of oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in PC-12 cells to compare approaches. For human screening, two reviewers independently screened studies based on title and abstract or full text, with disagreements reconciled by a third. For automated screening, we applied text mining to either title and abstract or full text. We trained a machine learning algorithm with decisions from 2000 randomly selected PubMed Central records enriched with a dataset of known in vitro studies.

RESULTS

Full-text approaches performed best, with human (sensitivity: 0.990, specificity: 1.000 and precision: 0.994) outperforming text mining (sensitivity: 0.972, specificity: 0.980 and precision: 0.764). For title and abstract, text mining (sensitivity: 0.890, specificity: 0.995 and precision: 0.922) outperformed human screening (sensitivity: 0.862, specificity: 0.998 and precision: 0.975). At our target sensitivity of 95% the algorithm performed with specificity of 0.850 and precision of 0.700.

CONCLUSION

In this in vitro systematic review, human screening based on title and abstract erroneously excluded 14% of relevant studies, perhaps because title and abstract provide an incomplete description of methods used. Our algorithm might be used as a first selection phase in in vitro systematic reviews to limit the extent of full text screening required.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain clinical management in neonates has always been a challenging medical issue. Worldwide, several systemic opioid regimens are available for pediatricians, neonatologists, and general practitioners to control pain in neonates undergoing surgical procedures. However, the most effective and safe regimen is still unknown in the current body of literature.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of different regimens of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates submitted to surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability. Potentially assessed regimens might include: different doses of the same opioid, different routes of administration of the same opioid, continuous infusion versus bolus administration, or 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were conducted in June 2022 using the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], PubMed, and CINAHL. Trial registration records were identified via CENTRAL and an independent search of the ISRCTN registry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, cluster-randomized, and cross-over controlled trials evaluating systemic opioid regimens' effects on postoperative pain in neonates (pre-term or full-term). We considered suitable for inclusion: I) studies evaluating different doses of the same opioid; 2) studies evaluating different routes of administration of the same opioid; 3) studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuous infusion versus bolus infusion; and 4) studies establishing an assessment of an 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

According to Cochrane methods, two investigators independently screened retrieved records, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. We stratified meta-analysis by the type of intervention: studies evaluating the use of opioids for postoperative pain in neonates through continuous infusion versus bolus infusion and studies assessing the 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), median, and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous data. Finally, we used the GRADEpro approach for primary outcomes to evaluate the quality of the evidence across included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review, we included seven randomized controlled clinical trials (504 infants) from 1996 to 2020. We identified no studies comparing different doses of the same opioid, or different routes. The administration of continuous opioid infusion versus bolus administration of opioids was evaluated in six studies, while one study compared 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled' administration of morphine given by parents or nurses. Overall, the effectiveness of continuous infusion of opioids over bolus infusion as measured by the visual analog scale (MD 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.23; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0); or using the COMFORT scale (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.75; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0), remains unclear due to study designs' limitations, such as the unclear risk of attrition, reporting bias, and imprecision among reported results (very low certainty of the evidence).  None of the included studies reported data on other clinically important outcomes such as all-cause mortality rate during hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, the incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity or intraventricular hemorrhage, and cognitive- and educational-related outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on continuous infusion compared to intermittent boluses of systemic opioids. We are uncertain whether continuous opioid infusion reduces pain compared with intermittent opioid boluses; none of the studies reported the other primary outcomes of this review, i.e. all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, significant neurodevelopmental disability, or cognitive and educational outcomes among children older than five years old. Only one small study reported on morphine infusion with parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.