Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs): protocol

Policies for healthy ageing in response to climate change: Protocol of a systematic review

Climate change is a global phenomenon affecting every segment of the population. Yet, older adults are more vulnerable to climate change events (e.g., floods, heatwaves, landslides) owing to their functional limitations. Understandably, stakeholders have called for healthy ageing policies that enable older adults and individuals in the general population to maintain wellbeing despite climate change. This review aims to describe healthy ageing policies adopted or recommended in response to climate change. Eight databases (i.e., CINAHL, Cochrane library, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE) will be searched to identify relevant studies. Materials published anywhere in English to date will be included in the review. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) or Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist will be employed to assess the quality of studies. A narrative synthesis will be adopted to present the results. This review will highlight groups targeted with healthy ageing policies and describe policies in use or recommended. It will proffer implications for practice, research, and sustainability.

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review

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

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists for psychosis: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human studies

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis.

METHODS

Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.