Anxiety during anesthesia induction can lead to various negative outcomes and psychological burdens in children undergoing surgery. Nonpharmacological interventions are available for reducing anxiety in this context. However, due to a lack of evidence from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the specific effects of these methods on children with anxiety during anesthesia induction remain unclear.

This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative effects of all known nonpharmacological interventions for reducing anxiety in children during anesthesia induction and to rank these interventions based on their practical applicability.

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published up to August 2024. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility of potential studies and extracted data. Outcome measures of the meta-analysis were the anxiety levels of children during anesthesia induction, the anxiety levels of parents, and the child's compliance during anesthesia induction. A consistency model was selected to conduct a network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effects and rank probabilities of different nonpharmacological interventions.

A total of 34 RCTs with 3,040 participants and six intervention methods were included. All trials confirmed the safety of the six intervention methods, with no significant adverse events reported. The network meta-analysis showed that the Passive Distraction Intervention (PDI)-Parental Presence at Induction of Anesthesia (PPIA), Interactive Distraction Intervention (IDI)-PPIA, IDI, PDI, and PPIA interventions were associated with more substantial reductions in anxiety than usual care. However, the studied interventions showed no statistically significant differences for reducing parental anxiety. The PPIA, IDI, and IDI-PPIA interventions also improved compliance during anesthesia induction.

Our study confirmed that some nonpharmacological interventions are effective at reducing anxiety in children and enhancing compliance during anesthesia induction. Therefore, we recommend several interventions for clinical practice, including the PDI-PPIA, IDI-PPIA, PDI, IDI, and PPIA when working with children undergoing anesthesia induction.

We registered this network meta-analysis with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42022262874).

Not applicable.

The British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published its updated guidelines for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in October 2021. NICE concluded, after an extensive review of the literature, that graded exercise therapy (GET) is harmful and should not be used, and that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is only an adjunctive and not a curative treatment. An article by White et al., which is written by 51 researchers, claims that there are eight anomalies in the review process and the interpretation of the evidence by NICE. In this article, we reviewed the evidence they used to support their claims. Their three most important claims are that NICE redefined the disease, that CBT and GET are effective, and that fixed incremental increases are not part of GET. However, our analysis shows that the disease was not redefined by NICE. Instead, it was redefined in the 1990s by a group of doctors, including a number of authors of White et al., when they erased the main characteristic of the disease (an abnormally delayed muscle recovery after trivial exertion, which, over the years, has evolved into post-exertional malaise) and replaced it with chronic disabling severe fatigue. Their own studies show that CBT and GET do not lead to a substantial improvement of the quality-of-life scores or a reduction in CFS symptom count, nor do they lead to objective improvement. Also, both treatments have a negative instead of a positive effect on work and disability status. Moreover, a recent systematic review, which included one of the authors of White et al., showed that ME/CFS patients remain severely disabled after treatment with CBT. Our analysis of, for example, the PACE trial's GET manual for therapists exposes the fixed incremental nature of GET. Why the authors are not aware of that is unclear because eight of them were involved in the PACE trial. Three of them were centre leaders and its principal investigators, four others were also centre leaders, and another one was one of the three independent safety assessors of the trial. Moreover, many of these eight authors wrote, or were involved in writing, this manual. In conclusion, our analysis shows that the arguments that are used to claim that there are eight anomalies in the review process and the interpretation of the evidence by NICE are anomalous and highlight the absence of evidence for the claims that are made. Furthermore, our analysis not only exposes the fixed incremental nature of GET, but also of CBT for ME/CFS.

Sports-related concussions (SRCs) are a major health issue in athletes of varying ages, ability levels, and sports. Concerns over the short- and long-term consequences of SRCs have incentivized a wealth of products and policies aimed at reducing SRC risk. Research suggesting the effectiveness of such interventions at reducing SRCs has facilitated their adoption by sports organizations and, in some cases, product commercialization. However, the body of SRC mitigation research is almost entirely devoid of placebo or sham groups, which raises important questions about the true clinical effectiveness of these interventions. This Current Opinion explores the plausibility of placebo effects within the scope of SRC prevention, describes why the lack of placebo/sham groups in the current body of literature is problematic, and provides recommendations for including placebo/sham groups in future SRC research.

Reliable, well-conducted, and adequately reported research is essential for decision-making. This study uses an exploratory clustering approach to identify patterns (subgroups) of trials based on research conduct and reporting characteristics to better understand heterogeneity. Describing features of these subgroups may help elucidate mechanisms of poor planning and reporting that can be acted upon by the research community to improve the research practices. Estimating the impact of trials from specific subgroup classes on pooled treatment effects and overall certainty of evidence may inform conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews in the future.

Our study used data from 456 randomized controlled trials eligible for our recent update of a Cochrane review, Exercise treatment for chronic low back pain, to explore groups of trials that have various characteristic patterns of research planning, conduct, reporting, and publication.

Using latent class analysis, we explored the patterns that exist in 43 characteristics of trial planning, conduct, reporting, and publication characteristics. We identified a 4-class model as the best fit for the data; classes were labeled based on the patterns of characteristics that emerged: (1) Well Resourced & Thorough, 155 trials (34%); (2) Dated, 92 trials (20%); (3) Fundamental Deficiencies, 102 trials (22%); and (4) Research Waste, 107 trials (24%). The characteristics that best differentiated the classes were trial registration status, institution/ethics board approval, conflict of interest reported, and reporting of adverse events. There were no significant differences for estimates of treatment effect in the four classes for all comparisons of treatments with pain intensity outcomes; two classes overestimated functional limitations outcomes for exercise compared to no trial treatment and compared to other conservative treatments.

Using a single characteristic to define quality or trustworthiness is no longer sufficient; individual 'problematic' characteristics could be found in all four classes. This novel research could be used as a framework for further exploration of research integrity issues in the health sciences, and the development of interventions to improve our evidence-base, taking into consideration the research motivations and means of trialists.

To describe the prevalence and incidence of pain, identify prognostic factors for pain, determine psychometric properties of tools to assess pain, and evaluate effectiveness of interventions for reducing pain among adults with cerebral palsy (CP).

Six databases were searched to identify studies published since 1990 in any language that met eligibility criteria defined for each objective. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers.

Sixty-three studies were identified; 47 reporting prevalence, 28 reporting prognostic factors, four reporting psychometric properties, five evaluating intervention effectiveness. Pain prevalence ranged from 24% to 89%. Prevalence was higher among adults with CP than in adults without it. Communication function, sex, and age were prognostic factors for pain prevalence. Numerical, verbal, and pictorial rating scales were valid for assessing pain intensity in adults with CP. Pharmacological and surgical interventions had no effect on pain. An active lifestyle and sports intervention reduced pain in adults with CP compared with usual care.

Many adults with CP experience pain, although prevalence estimates vary considerably. The quality of evidence for prognostic factors and interventions is very low to low. There is a lack of evidence about effective pain management among adults with CP.

Swift reversal of oral anticoagulation is deemed essential for the outcome of patients with anticoagulation-related critical bleeding. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in patients with oral anticoagulants-related critical bleeding.

For this systematic review CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Web of Science, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched. Clinical study reports were also requested from competent authorities. Eligible for inclusion were randomised clinical trials comparing PCC versus no intervention, placebo, or other reversal interventions in participants with critical bleeding related to ongoing treatment with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). Pre-specified primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events for which meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analysis, and GRADE assessments were conducted.

Three trials, randomising a total of 291 participants, evaluated PCC against two different active comparators in participants with VKA-related critical bleeding, and two trials, randomising a total of 534 participants, evaluated PCC against two different active comparators in participants with factor Xa-related critical bleeding. Among participants with VKA-related critical bleeding, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between PCC versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 4.05; low certainty), health-related quality of life (mean difference 1.04; 95% CI - 0.94 to 3.02; very low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.88; very low certainty), but information is currently sparse. Among participants with factor Xa-related critical bleeding, PCC could not be shown superior or inferior to other reversal strategies (FFP or andexanet alfa) on any patient-relevant outcome, but information is currently sparse.

Among participants with VKA or DOAC-related critical bleeding, evidence from randomised clinical trials is currently insufficient to establish if PCC is superior or inferior versus other interventions in decreasing the risk of undesirable patient-relevant outcomes or improving health-related quality of life.

Objective: e-Health or web-based systems in the field of tinnitus have gained increasing interest. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) delivered via the internet is currently witnessing a surge in both attention and offerings. This systematic review analyzed the efficacy and sustainability of internet-based therapies aimed at reducing tinnitus distress and comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. The review exclusively considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which trained personnel were actively involved during intervention. Methods: Utilizing search terms such as tinnitus, internet-based therapy, and e-Health therapy, we identified 155 studies, from which 37 RCTs were carefully examined for data availability. Primary outcome measures included treatment effects for tinnitus distress (Tinnitus Questionnaire and other questionnaires) and handicap (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory), while secondary outcomes encompassed depression, anxiety, and sleep problems. Meta-analyses were conducted employing random-effect models. A study effect model was applied, yielding a singular effect size for each sample. The effect sizes were examined for influences of various moderators. Results: We found a statistically significant large effect size for improvement in tinnitus distress (d = 0.83; [confidence interval 0.61-1.06] with total n = 450 for the experimental group and total n = 504 or the controls), while the reduction of tinnitus handicap was smaller (moderate effect size d = 0.59; [0.44-0.73]). Less strong but still significant effects resulted for depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Most of the long-term outcomes remained stable. As moderators, the risk of bias (RoB) and the severity of tinnitus manifestations were identified. Conclusions: Internet-based therapy provides a valuable avenue for initial therapeutic contact, as supporting component in tinnitus treatment if accompanied by therapists. The heterogeneous quality with high drop-out rates or partly high RoB and the wide range of interventions (counseling, eCBT, mindfulness) might be considered as a limiting factor for a first-line management in tinnitus. So far, the use of e-Health is dependent on availability or user preferences.

Pharmacoacupuncture (PA) is an alternative injection therapy for a broad range of conditions. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of PA in treating frozen shoulder (FS) and aims to standardise PA characteristics in clinical practice.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing PA for FS were systematically reviewed from seven electronic databases up to August 31, 2023. Outcomes measured included the visual analogue scale (VAS) or numerical rating scale (NRS), effective rate, Constant-Murley Score (CMS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), ROM, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3, with the risk of bias in each trial evaluated using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool assessed the quality of evidence.

Thirteen RCTs involving 1034 patients met the inclusion criteria, with eleven RCTs and 872 patients included in the meta-analysis. PA showed low-quality evidence of improvement in VAS, effective rate, CMS Total, and CMS Pain. Moderate-quality evidence indicated improvement in CMS ADL and CMS Mobility. PA was effective in four SF-36 subscales: physical function, social role function, mental health, and emotional role function. No significant difference in CMS strength was observed. One trial reported mild anaphylaxis reaction to bee venom as an adverse event.

PA may offer potential benefits as an alternative injection therapy for FS patients. Further well-designed RCTs with rigorous methodology are required to substantiate its therapeutic efficacy and clinical utility.

PROSPERO (CRD42023445708).

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia, disrupts the heart's rhythm through numerous small re-entry circuits in the atrial tissue, leading to irregular atrial contractions. The condition poses significant health risks, including increased stroke risk, heart failure, and reduced quality of life. Given the complexity of AF and its growing incidence globally, exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) may provide additional benefits for people with AF or those undergoing routine treatment for the condition.

To assess the benefits and harms of ExCR compared with non-exercise controls for people who currently have AF or who have been treated for AF.

We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection Thomson Reuters, CINAHL EBSCO, LILACS BIREME, and two clinical trial registers on 24 March 2024. We imposed no language restrictions.

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that investigated ExCR interventions compared with any type of non-exercise control. We included adults 18 years of age or older with any subtype of AF or those who had received treatment for AF.

Five review authors independently screened and extracted data in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots and by using standard Chi² and I² statistics. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models for continuous and dichotomised outcomes. We calculated standardised mean differences where different scales were used for the same outcome. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

We included 20 RCTs involving a total of 2039 participants with AF. All trials were conducted between 2006 and 2024, with a follow-up period ranging from eight weeks to five years. We assessed the certainty of evidence as moderate to very low. Five trials assessed comprehensive ExCR programmes, which included educational or psychological interventions, or both; the remaining 15 trials compared exercise-only cardiac rehabilitation with controls. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was mixed. Details on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and use of intention-to-treat analysis were typically poorly reported. Evidence from nine trials (n = 1173) suggested little to no difference in mortality between ExCR and non-exercise controls (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 101 deaths; low-certainty evidence). Based on evidence from 10 trials (n = 825), ExCR may have little to no effect on SAEs (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.67; I² = 0%; 28 events; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from four trials (n = 378) showed that ExCR likely reduced AF recurrence (measured via Holter monitoring) compared to controls (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; I² = 2%; moderate-certainty evidence). ExCR may reduce AF symptom severity (mean difference (MD) -1.59, 95% CI -2.98 to -0.20; I² = 61%; n = 600; low-certainty evidence); likely reduces AF symptom burden (MD -1.61, 95% CI -2.76 to -0.45; I² = 0%; n = 317; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce AF episode frequency (MD -1.29, 95% CI -2.50 to -0.07; I² = 75%; n = 368; low-certainty evidence); and likely reduces AF episode duration (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.03; I² = 0%; n = 317; moderate-certainty evidence), measured via the AF Severity Scale (AFSS) questionnaire. Moderate-certainty evidence from six trials (n = 504) showed that ExCR likely improved the mental component summary measure in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.11; I² = 2%), but the effect of ExCR on the physical component summary measure was very uncertain (MD 1.75, 95% CI -0.31 to 3.81; I² = 52%; very low-certainty evidence). ExCR also may improve individual components of HRQoL (general health, vitality, emotional role functioning, and mental health) and exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and 6-minute walk test) following ExCR. The effects of ExCR on serious adverse events and exercise capacity were consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre compared to home-based, exercise dose, exercise only compared to comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone compared to aerobic plus resistance programmes. Using univariate meta-regression, there was evidence of significant association between location of trial and length of longest follow-up on exercise capacity.

Due to few randomised participants and typically short-term follow-up, the impact of ExCR on all-cause mortality or serious adverse events for people with AF is uncertain. ExCR likely improves AF-specific measures including reduced AF recurrence, symptom burden, and episode duration, as well as the mental components of HRQoL. ExCR may improve AF symptom severity, episode frequency, and VO2peak. Future high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the benefits of ExCR for people with AF on patient-relevant outcomes including AF symptom severity and burden, AF recurrence, AF-specific quality of life, and clinical events such as mortality, readmissions, and serious adverse events. High-quality trials are needed to investigate how AF subtype and clinical setting (i.e. primary and secondary care) may influence ExCR effectiveness.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) which combines evidence from trials on multiple treatments in connected networks. NMA delivers internally consistent estimates of relative treatment efficacy, needed for rational decision making. Over its first 20 years NMA's use has grown exponentially, with applications in both health technology assessment (HTA), primarily re-imbursement decisions and clinical guideline development, and clinical research publications. This has been a period of transition in meta-analysis, first from its roots in educational and social psychology, where large heterogeneous datasets could be explored to find effect modifiers, to smaller pairwise meta-analyses in clinical medicine on average with less than six studies. This has been followed by narrowly-focused estimation of the effects of specific treatments at specific doses in specific populations in sparse networks, where direct comparisons are unavailable or informed by only one or two studies. NMA is a powerful and well-established technique but, in spite of the exponential increase in applications, doubts about the reliability and validity of NMA persist. Here we outline the continuing controversies, and review some recent developments. We suggest that heterogeneity should be minimized, as it poses a threat to the reliability of NMA which has not been fully appreciated, perhaps because it has not been seen as a problem in PMA. More research is needed on the extent of heterogeneity and inconsistency in datasets used for decision making, on formal methods for making recommendations based on NMA, and on the further development of multi-level network meta-regression.

Postoperative delirium remains prevalent despite extensive research through randomised trials aimed at reducing its incidence. Understanding trial characteristics associated with interventions' effectiveness facilitates data interpretation.

Trial characteristics were extracted from eligible trials identified through two systematic literature searches. Multivariable meta-regression was used to investigate trial characteristics associated with effectiveness estimated using odds ratios. Meta-analysis was used to investigate pooled effectiveness.

We identified 201 eligible trials. Compared with China, trials from the USA/Canada (ratio of odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-2.45) and Europe/Australia/New Zealand (1.67; 1.29-2.18) had an 89% and 67% higher odds ratio, respectively, suggesting reduced effectiveness. The effectiveness was enhanced when the incidence of postoperative delirium increased (0.85; 0.79-0.92, per 10% increase). Trials with concerns related to deviations from intended interventions reported increased effectiveness compared with those at low risk (0.69; 0.53-0.90). Compared with usual care, certain interventions appeared to have reduced the incidence of postoperative delirium in low-risk trials with low-to-moderate certainty of evidence. However, these findings should be considered inconclusive because of challenges in grouping heterogeneous interventions, the limited number of eligible trials, the prevalence of small-scale studies, and potential publication bias.

The effectiveness of postoperative delirium trials varied based on the region of trial origin, the incidence of delirium, and the risk of bias. The limitations caution against drawing definitive conclusions from different bodies of evidence. These findings highlight the imperative need to improve the quality of research on a global scale.

PROSPERO (CRD42023413984).

Although immunization can dramatically curb the mortality and morbidity associated with vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccination uptake remains suboptimal in many areas of the world. Here, in this meta-analysis, we analysed the results from 88 eligible randomized controlled trials testing interventions to increase vaccination uptake with 1,628,768 participants from 17 countries with variable development levels (for example, Human Development Index ranging from 0.485 to 0.955). We estimated the efficacy of seven intervention strategies including increasing access to vaccination, sending vaccination reminders, providing incentives, supplying information, correcting misinformation, promoting both active and passive motivation and teaching behavioural skills. We showed that the odds of vaccination were 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 1.77) times higher for intervention than control conditions. Among the intervention strategies, using incentives and increasing access were most promising in improving vaccination uptake, with the access strategy being particularly effective in countries with lower incomes and less access to healthcare.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 70% to 85% of individuals with primary liver cancer. Tamoxifen has been evaluated in randomised clinical trials in people with hepatocellular cancer. The reported results have been inconsistent.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024.

Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis.

Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious.

We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool.

We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years.

Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials.

Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking.

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014869.

Arts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research-without critical appraisal of included studies-do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions.

We performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023).

The 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability.

The absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health.

This study aimed to investigate whether placebo control is differently disclosed in drug and non-drug randomised clinical trial (RCT) participant information leaflets (PILs) and how this might affect participant blinding and direction of study outcomes.

PILs were obtained from trials registered in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number database via email. Placebo descriptions in PILs were categorised as Full Disclosure (FD), Partial Disclosure (PD), or Missing Information (MI). Associations between intervention type (drug or non-drug)/placebo disclosure (FD or PD/MI) and participant blinding success/trial outcome direction (positive or non-positive) were examined using a two-sided Fisher's exact test.

Of 116 collected PILs, 56 % were for drug trials and 44 % were for non-drug trials. Among them, 88 PILs had the corresponding publications available and 68 reports specified primary outcomes. Drug trials were more likely to fully disclose placebo information than non-drug trials (92.3 % vs. 74.5 %, p < 0.05). However, the success rate of blinding was only reported in 3 out of 88 trial publications (3.4 %), precluding further analysis. Furthermore, there was no significant association between the direction of trial results and the type of intervention or placebo disclosure.

Our study findings suggest that drug and non-drug RCTs might differ in the way they reveal placebo control information. Further research is warranted to understand what leads to more common PD of placebo information in non-drug trials than drug trials and to determine the optimal placebo control disclosure in specific trial context.

Previously published meta-epidemiological studies focused on Western medicine have identified some trial characteristics that impact the treatment effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Nevertheless, it remains unclear if similar associations exist in RCTs on Chinese herbal medicine (CHM). Further, Chinese medicine-related characteristics have not been explored yet.

To investigate trial characteristics related to treatment effect estimates on CHM RCTs.

This meta-epidemiological study searched 5 databases for systematic reviews on CHM treatment published between January 2011 and July 2021.

An eligible systematic review should only include RCTs of CHM and conduct at least one meta-analysis.

Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction on general characteristics of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and included RCTs. They also assessed the risk of bias of RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A two-step approach was used for data analyses. The ratio of odds ratios (ROR) and difference in standardized mean differences (dSMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied to present the difference in effect estimates for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Ninety-one systematic reviews, comprising 1338 RCTs were identified. For binary outcomes, RCTs incorporated with syndrome differentiation (ROR: 1.23; 95 % CI: [1.07, 1.39]), adopting Chinese medicine formula (ROR: 1.19; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.34]), with low risk of bias on incomplete outcome data (ROR: 1.29; 95% CI: [1.06, 1.52]) and selective outcome reporting (ROR: 1.12; 95% CI: [1.01, 1.24]), as well as a trial size ≥ 100 (ROR: 1.23; 95% CI: [1.04, 1.42]) preferred to show larger effect estimates. As for continuous outcomes, RCTs with Chinese medicine diagnostic criteria (dSMD: 0.23; 95% CI: [0.06, 0.41]), judged as high/unclear risk of bias on allocation concealment (dSMD: -0.70; 95% CI: [-0.99, -0.42]), with low risk of bias on incomplete outcome data (dSMD: 0.30; 95% CI: [0.18, 0.43]), conducted at a single center (dSMD: -0.33; 95% CI: [-0.61, -0.05]), not using intention-to-treat analysis (dSMD: -0.75; 95% CI: [-1.43, -0.07]), and without funding support (dSMD: -0.22; 95% CI: [-0.41, -0.02]) tended to show larger effect estimates.

This study provides empirical evidence for the development of a specific critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessments on CHM RCTs. Please cite this article as: Wang BH, Lin YL, Gao YY, Song JL, Qin L, Li LQ, Liu WQ, Zhong CCW, Jiang MY, Mao C, Yang XB, Chung VCH, Wu IXY. Trial characteristics and treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine: A meta-epidemiological study. J Integr Med. 2024; 22(3): 223-234.

Liver metastases (i.e. secondary hepatic malignancies) are significantly more common than primary liver cancer. Long-term survival after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. For people in whom resection for cure is not feasible, other treatments must be considered. One treatment option is microwave coagulation utilising electromagnetic waves. It involves placing an electrode into a lesion under ultrasound or computed tomography guidance.

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of microwave coagulation versus no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases regardless of the location of the primary tumour.

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest date of search was 14 April 2023.

Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial or harmful effects of microwave coagulation and its comparators in people with liver metastases, irrespective of the location of the primary tumour. We included trials no matter the outcomes reported.

We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality at the last follow-up and time to mortality; health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were: cancer mortality; disease-free survival; failure to clear liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; time to progression of liver metastases; and tumour response measures. We used risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to present the results. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Three randomised clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The control interventions differed in the three trials; therefore, meta-analyses were not possible. The trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of evidence of the assessed outcomes in the three comparisons was very low. Data on our prespecified outcomes were either missing or not reported. Microwave coagulation plus conventional transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus conventional TACE alone One trial, conducted in China, randomised 50 participants (mean age 60 years, 76% males) with liver metastases from various primary sites. Authors reported that the follow-up period was at least one month. The trial reported adverse events or complications in the experimental group only and for tumour response measures. There were no dropouts in the trial. The trial did not report on any other outcomes. Microwave ablation versus conventional surgery One trial, conducted in Japan, randomised 40 participants (mean age 61 years, 53% males) with multiple liver metastases of colorectal cancer. Ten participants were excluded after randomisation (six from the experimental and four from the control group); thus, the trial analyses included 30 participants. Follow-up was three years. The reported number of deaths from all causes was 9/14 included participants in the microwave group versus 12/16 included participants in the conventional surgery group. The mean overall survival was 27 months in the microwave ablation and 25 months in the conventional surgery group. The three-year overall survival was 14% with microwave ablation and 23% with conventional surgery, resulting in an HR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.39 to 2.15). The reported frequency of adverse events or complications was comparable between the two groups, except for the required blood transfusion, which was more common in the conventional surgery group. There was no intervention-related mortality. Disease-free survival was 11.3 months in the microwave ablationgroup and 13.3 months in the conventional surgery group. The trial did not report on HRQoL. Microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation One trial, conducted in Germany, randomised 50 participants (mean age 62.8 years, 46% males) who were followed for 24 months. Two-year mortality showed an RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.47). The trial reported that, by two years, 76.9% of participants in the microwave ablationgroup and 62.5% of participants in the radiofrequency ablation group survived (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.73). The trial reported no deaths or major complications during the procedures in either group. There were two minor complications only in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.67). The trial reported technical efficacy in 100% of procedures in both groups. Distant recurrence was reported for 10 participants in the microwave ablation group and nine participants in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.08). No participant in the microwave ablation group demonstrated local progression at 12 months, while that occurred in two participants in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.67). The trial did not report on HRQoL. One trial reported partial support by Medicor (MMS Medicor Medical Supplies GmbH, Kerpen, Germany) for statistical analysis. The remaining two trials did not provide information on funding. We identified four ongoing trials.

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of microwave ablation in addition to conventional TACE compared with conventional TACE alone on adverse events or complications. We do not know if microwave ablation compared with conventional surgery may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality. We do not know the effect of microwave ablation compared with radiofrequency ablation on all-cause mortality and adverse events or complications either. Data on all-cause mortality and time to mortality, HRQoL, adverse events or complications, cancer mortality, disease-free survival, failure to clear liver metastases, recurrence of liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, and tumour response measures were either insufficient or were lacking. In light of the current inconclusive evidence and the substantial gaps in data, the pursuit of additional good-quality, large randomised clinical trials is not only justified but also essential to elucidate the efficacy and comparative benefits of microwave ablation in relation to various interventions for liver metastases. The current version of the review, in comparison to the previous one, incorporates two new trials in two additional microwave ablation comparisons: 1. in addition to conventional TACE versus conventional TACE alone and 2. versus radiofrequency ablation.

Junior doctors make clinical decisions regularly; therefore, they need to adequately interpret the evidence supporting these decisions. Patients can be harmed if clinical treatments are supported by biased or unreliable evidence. Systematic reviews that contain meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are a relatively low-biased type of evidence to support clinical interventions. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that doctors will likely select this type of study to answer clinical questions. In this article, doctors are informed about potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews that contain a meta-analysis that are sometimes not easily identified or even overlooked by the current tools developed to assess their methodological quality or risk of bias. The article presents a discussion of topics related to data extraction, accuracy in reporting, reproducibility, heterogeneity, quality assessment of primary studies included in the systematic review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest. It is expected that the information reported will be useful for junior doctors when they are reading and interpreting evidence from systematic reviews containing meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions, mainly those doctors unfamiliar with methodological principles.

The prevalence of gallstones varies between less than 1% and 64% in different populations and is thought to be increasing in response to changes in nutritional intake and increasing obesity. Some people with gallstones have no symptoms but approximately 2% to 4% develop them each year, predominantly including severe abdominal pain. People who experience symptoms have a greater risk of developing complications. The main treatment for symptomatic gallstones is cholecystectomy. Traditionally, a low-fat diet has also been advised to manage gallstone symptoms, but there is uncertainty over the evidence to support this.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of modified dietary fat intake in the treatment of gallstone disease in people of any age.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE ALL Ovid, Embase Ovid, and three other databases to 17 February 2023 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with gallstones. We also searched online trial registries and pharmaceutical company sources, for ongoing or unpublished trials to March 2023.

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in people with gallstones diagnosed using ultrasonography or conclusive imaging methods. We excluded participants diagnosed with another condition that may compromise dietary fat tolerance. We excluded trials where data from participants with gallstones were not reported separately from data from participants who did not have gallstones. We included trials that investigated other interventions (e.g. trials of drugs or other dietary (non-fat) components) providing that the trial groups had received the same proportion of drug or other dietary (non-fat) components in the intervention.

We intended to undertake meta-analysis and present the findings according to Cochrane recommendations. However, as we identified only five trials, with data unsuitable and insufficient for analyses, we described the data narratively.

We included five trials but only one randomised clinical trial (69 adults), published in 1986, reported outcomes of interest to the review. The trial had four dietary intervention groups, three of which were relevant to this review. We assessed the trial at high risk of bias. The dietary fat modifications included a modified cholesterol intake and medium-chain triglyceride supplementation. The control treatment was a standard diet. The trial did not report on any of the primary outcomes in this review (i.e. all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life). The trial reported on gallstone dissolution, one of our secondary outcomes. We were unable to apply the GRADE approach to determine certainty of evidence because the included trial did not provide data that could be used to generate an estimate of the effect on this or any other outcome. The trial expressed its finding as "no significant effect of a low-cholesterol diet in the presence of ursodeoxycholic acid on gallstone dissolution." There were no serious adverse events reported. The included trial reported that they received no funding that could bias the trial results through conflicts of interest. We found no ongoing trials.

The evidence about the effects of modifying dietary fat on gallstone disease versus standard diet is scant. We lack results from high-quality randomised clinical trials which investigate the effects of modification of dietary fat and other nutrient intakes with adequate follow-up. There is a need for well-designed trials that should include important clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, impact on dissolution of gallstones, hospital admissions, surgical intervention, and adverse events.

Background: This study aimed to assess the overall reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) formulas for patients with diabetes, and to identify factors associated with better reporting quality. Methods: Four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically searched from their inception to December 2022. The reporting quality was assessed based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and its CHM formula extension. The overall CONSORT and its CHM formula extension scores were calculated and expressed as proportions separately. We also analyzed the pre-specified study characteristics and performed exploratory regressions to determine their associations with the reporting quality. Results: Seventy-two RCTs were included. Overall reporting quality (mean adherence) were 53.56% and 45.71% on the CONSORT statement and its CHM formula extension, respectively. The strongest associations with reporting quality based on the CONSORT statement were multiple centers and larger author numbers. Compliance with the CHM formula extension, particularly regarding the disclosure of the targeted traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) pattern (s), was generally insufficient. Conclusion: The reporting quality of RCTs in CHM formulas for diabetes remains unsatisfactory, and the adherence to the CHM formula extension is even poorer. In order to ensure transparent and standardized reporting of RCTs, it is essential to advocate for or even mandate adherence of the CONSORT statement and its CHM formula extension when reporting trials in CHM formulas for diabetes by both authors and editors.

To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials.

We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses.

Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain.

Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias.

Procedural sedation aims to facilitate a successful diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The pharmacokinetic properties and pharmacodynamic effects need to be taken into consideration when choosing the ideal sedative. Midazolam and propofol are frequently employed. However, they are associated with respiratory depression with increasing dosage. Also, midazolam has a potentially unpredictable pharmacodynamic response and propofol may cause hypotension and injection site pain. Remimazolam may provide a superior alternative due to its rapid pharmacodynamic profile and insignificant circulatory effects.

This protocol employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful clinical effects of remimazolam versus placebo or other sedatives in adult patients requiring sedation in relation to a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, or due to other circumstances. Three primary outcomes are identified: Sedation success rate, respiratory complications, and hemodynamic complications. Six secondary outcomes are identified: among these are quality of recovery and serious adverse events. All randomized trials are included. The search strategy includes six major biomedical databases. Literature screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Risk of systemic error will be assessed with Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Risk of random error will be assessed with trial sequential analysis. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by appropriate statistical tests. The certainty of the evidence will be judged using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis will be carried out with Rstudio. A "Summary of Findings" table will be presented with our primary and secondary outcome results.

The systematic review with up-to-date methodology outlined in this protocol investigates the clinical effects of remimazolam in relation to procedural sedation. The results may guide clinicians in the clinical use of remimazolam.

The physical activity level in patients hospitalised for rehabilitation across multiple diagnoses is low. Moderate to severe acquired brain injury further reduces activity levels as impaired physical and cognitive functioning affect mobility independence. Therefore, supervised out-of-bed mobilisation and physical activity training are essential rehabilitation strategies. Few studies have measured the physical activity patterns in the early phases of rehabilitation after moderate to severe brain injury.

To map and quantify physical activity patterns in patients admitted to brain injury rehabilitation. Further, to investigate which factors are associated with activity and if the early physical activity level is associated with functional outcome at discharge.

This observational study includes patients admitted to rehabilitation after moderate to severe acquired brain injury. Mobility and physical activity patterns are measured continuously during rehabilitation at two separate seven-day periods using a wearable activity tracker. Activity will be categorised into four levels and presented descriptively. Linear and logistic regression models will analyse associations between descriptive variables and activity levels.

This protocol describes an observational study investigating patients' mobility and physical activity patterns with moderate to severe acquired brain injury during in-hospital rehabilitation. The ability to increase the amount of mobilisation and physical activity in subgroups may have profound consequences on the rehabilitation outcome. Furthermore, data from this study may be used to inform a large variety of trials investigating physical rehabilitation interventions. (NCT05571462).

To evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicines for the treatment of gastric precancerous lesions in the past 20 years.

The RCTs on traditional Chinese medicines for gastric precancerous lesions were searched from the CNKI, Wanfang database, VIP, PubMed, and Embase from January 2001 to December 2021. The retrieved articles were screened, extracted and evaluated based on the 2010 edition of CONSORT statement, Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Scale and additional evaluation indicators.

A total of 840 papers were included. According to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Scale, the high risk of bias in the application of randomized methods was 5.95%; the risk of uncertainty for the allocation scheme concealment was 98.93%; the risk of uncertainty for blinding of patients or testers was 98.69%; the risk of uncertainty for blinding of the outcome assessor was 100.00%; the risk of bias for completeness of the outcome data was 2.86%; and the risk of uncertainty for selective reporting was 98.45%. The CONSORT statement evaluating the quality of reporting showed that 100.00% of the RCT articles reported the 8 entries; 36.79% of the literature mentioned the method of randomized sequence generation, but only 27.62% of the literature mentioned who implemented the randomized program, 1.07% of the literature hid the randomized program and 1.31% of the studies were blinded; 36.67% of the literature reported adverse reactions; no literature reported sample size prediction methods. Additional evaluation indicators showed that 17.02% of the studies had ethical approval; 43.81% of the literature specified Chinese medicine evidence; 16.55% of the studies excluded severe heterotrophic hyperplasia; 7.26% of the studies conducted follow-up; and 65.12% of the literature used composite efficacy indicators; 46.67% of the literature applied pathological histological evaluation; 2.62% of the literature applied quality of life evaluation.

The overall risk of bias in RCTs of traditional Chinese medicines for gastric precancerous lesions is high, and the quality of most of the study reports needs to be improved. In the future, it is necessary to strengthen the study design of RCTs and refer to appropriate traditional Chinese medicines evidence grading standards, select study protocols according to different purposes, provide objective and strong evidence for clinical studies on traditional Chinese medicines, and carry out clinical study design and result reporting suitable for traditional Chinese medicines according to the CONSORT principle.

To explore the relationships between the risk of bias and treatment effect estimates for exercise therapy interventions on pain intensity and physical functioning outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with chronic low back pain.

A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study of the 230 RCTs (31,674 participants) in the 2021 'Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain' Cochrane Review were included. Study design characteristics, sample size, prospective trial registration, flowchart information, interventions, and comparisons were extracted. Independent pairs of reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

The metaregression included 220 (pain intensity) and 203 (physical functioning) effect sizes. Unadjusted and adjusted metaregression models showed no significant associations between the bias domains and pain intensity effect sizes. Only domain 'bias in the measurement of the outcome' was significantly associated with physical functioning (standardized mean difference: -0.40, 95% confidence interval: -0.77 to -0.02) when adjusted for flowchart reported (yes/no), prospective trial registration, sample size, and comparator type.

The risk of bias in the measurement of the outcome could lead to slight overestimates of the effect size for physical functioning. Clinicians should consider this when they read and assess RCT results in this field. We encourage metaresearchers to replicate our findings using a consistent approach for evaluating the risk of bias (i.e., the RoB 2 tool) in other musculoskeletal conditions and interventions to investigate their generalizability.

Autonomy-supporting interventions, such as self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions, may improve self-management and clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes. Such interventions have never been systematically reviewed assessing both benefits and harms and concurrently controlling the risks of random errors using trial sequential analysis methodology. This systematic review investigates the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions compared to usual care in people with diabetes.

We used the Cochrane methodology. Randomized clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory in any setting were eligible. A comprehensive search (latest search April 2022) was undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and performed risk-of-bias assessment of included trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and nonserious adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and motivation (autonomy, controlled, amotivation). Outcomes were assessed at the end of the intervention (primary time point) and at maximum follow-up. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Our search identified 5578 potentially eligible studies of which 11 randomized trials (6059 participants) were included. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias. We found no effect of self-determination theory-based interventions compared with usual care on quality of life (mean difference 0.00 points, 95% CI -4.85, 4.86, I2 = 0%; 225 participants, 3 trials, TSA-adjusted CI -11.83, 11.83), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, adverse events, glycated hemoglobulin A1c, or motivation (controlled). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. We found beneficial effect on motivation (autonomous and amotivation; low certainty evidence).

We found no effect of self-determination-based interventions on our primary or secondary outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty.

PROSPERO CRD42020181144.

Chronic pain in adults is a frequent clinical symptom with a significant impact on patient well-being. Therefore, sufficient pain management is of utmost importance. While tramadol is a commonly used pain medication, the quality of evidence supporting its use has been questioned considering the observed adverse events. Our objective will be to assess the benefits and harms of tramadol compared with placebo or no intervention for chronic pain.

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of tramadol in any dose, formulation, or duration. We will accept placebo or no intervention as control interventions. We will include adult participants with any type of chronic pain, including cancer-related pain. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by Cochrane and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors ('bias') and random errors ('play of chance') will be assessed. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Although tramadol is often being used to manage chronic pain conditions, the beneficial and harmful effects of this intervention are unknown. The present review will systematically assess the current evidence on the benefits and harms of tramadol versus placebo or no intervention to inform clinical practice and future research.

PROSPERO CRD42019140334.

Liver resection is the optimal treatment for selected benign and malignant liver tumours, but it can be associated with significant blood loss. Numerous anaesthetic and surgical techniques have been developed to reduce blood loss and improve perioperative outcomes. One such technique is the application of topical fibrin-based haemostatic agents (FBHAs) to the resection surface. There is no standard practice for FBHA use, and a variety of commercial agents and devices are available, as well as non-FBHAs (e.g. collagen-based agents). The literature is inconclusive on the effectiveness of these methods and on the clinical benefits of their routine use.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin-based haemostatic agents in reducing intraoperative blood loss in adults undergoing liver resection.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science up to 20 January 2023. We also searched online trial registries, checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and contacted the authors of included trials for additional published or unpublished trials.

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials evaluating FBHAs versus no topical intervention or non-FBHAs, irrespective of publication type, publication status, language of publication, and outcomes reported. Eligible participants could have any liver pathology and be undergoing major or minor liver resections through open or laparoscopic surgery.

Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search and used data extraction forms to collate the results. We expressed dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MDs), each with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model for the main analyses. Our primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, serious adverse events, haemostatic efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were efficacy as sealant, adverse events considered non-serious, operating time, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE and presented results in two summary of findings tables.

We included 22 trials (2945 participants) evaluating FBHAs versus no intervention or non-FBHAs; 19 trials with 2642 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Twelve trials reported commercial funding, one trial reported no financial support, and nine trials provided no information on funding. Below we present the most clinically relevant outcome results, also displayed in our summary of findings table. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus no intervention Six trials (1001 participants) compared FBHAs with no intervention. One trial was at low risk of bias in all five domains, and all other trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Two trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with no intervention have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.44; 4 trials, 782 participants), serious adverse events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; 4 trials, 782 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40; 5 trials, 864 participants), reoperation (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 14.61; 2 trials, 612 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; 4 trials, 782 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus non-fibrin-based haemostatic agents Sixteen trials (1944 participants) compared FBHAs with non-FBHAs. All trials had at least one domain at high or unclear risk of bias. Twelve trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.72; 11 trials, 1436 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.25; 7 trials, 599 participants), reoperation (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 3 trials, 358 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21; 9 trials, 1115 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs may have little or no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 9 trials, 1176 participants; low-certainty evidence).

The evidence for the outcomes in both comparisons (FBHAs versus no intervention and FBHAs versus non-FBHAs) was of very low certainty (or low certainty in one instance) and cannot justify the routine use of FBHAs to reduce blood loss in adult liver resection. While the meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of reoperation with FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs, the analysis was confounded by the small number of trials reporting the event and the risk of bias in all these trials. Future trials should focus on the use of FBHAs in people undergoing liver resection who are at particularly high risk of bleeding. Investigators should evaluate clinically meaningful and patient-important outcomes and follow the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements.

Prostaglandins are naturally occurring lipids that are synthesised from arachidonic acid. Multiple studies have evaluated the benefits of prostaglandins in reducing ischaemia reperfusion injury after liver transplantation. New studies have been published since the previous review, and hence it was important to update the evidence for this intervention.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prostaglandins in adults undergoing liver transplantation compared with placebo or standard care.

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 27 December 2022.

We included randomised clinical trials evaluating prostaglandins initiated in the perioperative period compared with placebo or standard care for adults undergoing liver transplantation. We included trials irrespective of reported outcomes.

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. serious adverse events, and 3. health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 4. liver retransplantation, 5. early allograft dysfunction, 6. primary non-function of the allograft, 7. acute kidney failure, 8. length of hospital stay, and 9. adverse events considered non-serious. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

We included 11 randomised clinical trials with 771 adult liver transplant recipients (mean age 47.31 years, male 61.48%), of whom 378 people were randomised to receive prostaglandins and 393 people were randomised to either placebo (272 participants) or standard care (121 participants). All trials were published between 1993 and 2016. Ten trials were conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. Prostaglandins may reduce all-cause mortality up to one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.23; risk difference (RD) 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 63 fewer to 36 more; 11 trials, 771 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prostaglandins may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40; RD 81 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 148 fewer to 18 more; 6 trials, 568 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials reported health-related quality of life. Prostaglandins may result in little to no difference in liver retransplantation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.96; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 62 more; 6 trials, 468 participants; low-certainty evidence); early allograft dysfunction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.18; RD 137 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 241 fewer to 47 more; 1 trial, 99 participants; low-certainty evidence); primary non-function of the allograft (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.32; RD 23 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 16 more; 7 trials, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -1.15 days, 95% CI -5.44 to 3.14; 4 trials, 369 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prostaglandins may result in a large reduction in the development of acute kidney failure requiring dialysis (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73; RD 100 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 132 fewer to 49 fewer; 5 trials, 477 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of prostaglandins on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.36; RD 225 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 294 fewer to 65 fewer; 4 trials, 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported receiving funding; one of these was with vested interests. We found one registered ongoing trial.

Eleven trials evaluated prostaglandins in adult liver transplanted recipients. Based on low-certainty evidence, prostaglandins may reduce all-cause mortality up to one month; may cause little to no difference in serious adverse events, liver retransplantation, early allograft dysfunction, primary non-function of the allograft, and length of hospital stay; and may have a large reduction in the development of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. We do not know the effect of prostaglandins on adverse events considered non-serious. We lack adequately powered, high-quality trials evaluating the effects of prostaglandins for people undergoing liver transplantation.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a widely used procedure for management of uncontrolled upper gastrointestinal bleeding and refractory ascites in people with liver cirrhosis. However, nearly half of the people experience shunt dysfunction and recurrent symptoms within one year of the procedure. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stents are assumed to decrease shunt dysfunction by approximately 20% to 30%.

To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stents versus bare stents in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs) for managing people with liver cirrhosis.

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 February 2023.

Randomised clinical trials comparing ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents in TIPS for treatment of people with liver cirrhosis.

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. procedure-related complications, and 3. health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 4. upper gastrointestinal bleeding, 5. recurrence of ascites, 6. hepatic encephalopathy, 7. kidney failure, 8. early thrombosis, 9. non-serious adverse events, and 10. shunt dysfunction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. We analysed outcome data at the maximum follow-up, except for the 'early thrombosis' outcome for which it was within 12 weeks after the TIPS procedure.

We included four trials with 565 randomised participants (age range: 18 to 75 years; male range: 63.6% to 75.0%). A total of 527 participants provided data for analyses because of losses to follow-up. Two trials were conducted in China; one in France; and one in France, Spain, and Canada. Participants were classified with cirrhosis Child-Pugh class A, B, or C, and for some, the class was not reported. We used intention-to-treat principle (four trials) and per-protocol analysis (one trial) to meta-analyse the data. One trial compared ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of the same diameter and three trials compared ePTFE-covered stents versus stents of different diameters. ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of the same diameter One trial with 258 participants compared 8 mm covered stent versus 8 mm bare stent. Mortality in the covered stent group is possibly lower than in the bare stent group (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.92; low-certainty evidence). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84), recurrence of ascites (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87), and shunt dysfunction (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.61) occurred more often in the bare stent group than in the covered stent group (all low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in hepatic encephalopathy between groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.61; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report data on procedure-related complications, health-related quality of life, early thrombosis, and segmental liver ischaemia (a non-serious adverse event). ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of different stent diameters Three trials compared ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of different diameters (10.5 (standard deviation (SD) 0.9) mm versus 11.7 (SD 0.8) mm; 8 mm versus 10 mm; and one trial used 10-mm stents that could be dilated from 8 mm to 10 mm). There was no evidence of a difference between the ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents groups in mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 3 trials, 269 participants), procedure-related complications (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.57; 1 trial, 80 participants), upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.38; 3 trials, 269 participants), hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 3 trials, 269 participants), and kidney failure (RR 7.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 143.92; 1 trial, 121 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence). Recurrence of ascites (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.85; 3 trials, 269 participants; low-certainty evidence), shunt dysfunction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; 3 trials, 269 participants; low-certainty evidence), and early thrombosis (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 261 participants; very low-certainty evidence) occurred more often in the bare stents group. There was no evidence of a difference in segmental liver ischaemia (RR 5.25, 95% CI 0.26 to 106.01; 1 trial, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial presented data on health-related quality of life. Funding One trial did not clearly report funding sources. The remaining three trials declared that they had no funding with vested interests.

Based on the small number of trials with insufficient sample size and events, and study limitations, we assessed the overall certainty of evidence in the predefined outcomes as low or very low. Therefore, we are uncertain which of the two interventions (ePTFE-covered stents or bare stents of the same diameter and ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of different stent diameters) is effective for the evaluated outcomes. None of the four trials reported data on health-related quality of life, and data on complications were either missing or rarely reported. We lack high-quality trials to evaluate the role of ePTFE-covered stents for TIPS for managing people with liver cirrhosis.

To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials.

Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high-impact journals. Information on adequate vs inadequate reporting of cointerventions, blinding, risk of bias due to deviations of intended interventions (low vs high/some concerns), funding (nonindustry vs industry), design (superiority vs noninferiority), and results were assessed by 2 reviewers. The association with effect sizes was assessed using meta-regression random-effect analysis, expressed as ratios of odds ratios (ROR). RORs of >1.0 indicated that trials with the methodological factor pointing to lower quality report larger treatment estimates.

In total, 164 trials were included. Of the 164 trials, 124 (74%) did not adequately report cointerventions; 89 of the 164 trials (54%) provided no information regarding cointerventions, and 70 of the 164 (43%) were at risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Moreover, 86 of the 164 (53%) were at risk of bias due to deviation of intended interventions. Of the 164 trials, 144 (88%) were funded by the industries. Trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions had larger treatment estimates for the primary end point (ROR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15; I²=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I²=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I²=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I²=0%) was found.

We conclude that trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions showed larger treatment effect estimates, potentially indicating overestimation of therapeutic benefit.

Prospero Identifier: CRD42017072522.

Hepatic encephalopathy describes the spectrum of neuropsychiatric changes that may complicate the course of cirrhosis and detrimentally affect outcomes. Ammonia plays a key role in its development. Rifaximin is a non-absorbable antibiotic that inhibits urease-producing bacteria and reduces absorption of dietary and bacterial ammonia.

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of rifaximin versus placebo, no intervention, or non-absorbable disaccharides for: (i) the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, and (ii) the treatment of minimal and overt hepatic encephalopathy, in people with cirrhosis, both when used alone and when combined with a non-absorbable disaccharide.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Clinical Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, the reference lists of identified papers, and relevant conference proceedings. We wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies for information on other published, unpublished, or ongoing trials. Searches were performed to January 2023.

We included randomised clinical trials assessing prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy with rifaximin alone, or with a non-absorbable disaccharide, versus placebo/no intervention, or a non-absorbable disaccharide alone.

Six authors independently searched for studies, extracted data, and validated findings. We assessed the design, bias risk, and participant/intervention characteristics of the included studies. We assessed mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatic encephalopathy, non-serious adverse events, blood ammonia, Number Connection Test-A, and length of hospital stay.

We included 41 trials involving 4545 people with, or at risk for, developing hepatic encephalopathy. We excluded 89 trials and identified 13 ongoing studies. Some trials involved participants with more than one type of hepatic encephalopathy or more than one treatment comparison. Hepatic encephalopathy was classed as acute (13 trials), chronic (7 trials), or minimal (8 trials), or else participants were considered at risk for its development (13 trials). The control groups received placebo (12 trials), no/standard treatment (1 trial), or a non-absorbable disaccharide (14 trials). Eighteen trials assessed rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide versus a non-absorbable disaccharide alone. We classified 11 trials as at high risk of overall bias for mortality and 28 for non-mortality outcomes, mainly due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.38; P = 48, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 1007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.97; P = 0.97, I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 786 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there is likely a reduction in the overall risk of mortality when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 22; P = 0.001, I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 1946 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is likely no effect on the overall risk of serious adverse events when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.32; P = 68, I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 801 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.40; P = 85, I2 = 0%; 8 trials, 681 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was very low-certainty evidence that use of rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide may be associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events than use of a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; P = 0.04, I2 = 60%; 7 trials, 1076 participants). Rifaximin likely results in an overall effect on health-related quality of life when compared to placebo/no intervention (mean difference (MD) -1.43, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.02; P = 0.05, I2 = 81%; 4 trials, 214 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may benefit health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MD -2.07, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.35; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 176 participants). The overall effect on health-related quality of life when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides is very uncertain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.98; P = 0.62, I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 249 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the combined rifaximin/non-absorbable disaccharide trials reported on this outcome. There is likely an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 68%; 13 trials, 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This effect may be more marked in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.52; NNTB = 3; P < 0.001, I2 = 10%; 6 trials, 364 participants) and in prevention trials (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.91; NNTB = 10; P = 0.007, I2 = 36%; 4 trials, 474 participants). There may be little overall effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; P = 0.13, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 921 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there may be an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 62%; 17 trials, 2332 participants; low-certainty evidence).

Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely improves health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy, and may improve hepatic encephalopathy, particularly in populations with minimal hepatic encephalopathy and when it is used for prevention. Rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or hepatic encephalopathy compared to non-absorbable disaccharides. However, when used in combination with a non-absorbable disaccharide, it likely reduces overall mortality risk, the risk of serious adverse events, improves hepatic encephalopathy, reduces the length of hospital stay, and prevents the occurrence/recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy. The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low to moderate; further high-quality trials are needed.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV)-human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infection promotes an aggressive disease course of HBV infection. In the only available non-Cochrane systematic review on antiviral therapy during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HBV, none of the women studied had HBV-HIV co-infection but were either HBV- or HIV-seropositive. Treatment of HBV alone may develop HIV-strains that are resistant to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Accordingly, co-treatment of the HIV infection is recommended.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of tenofovir-based antiviral combination regimens versus placebo, tenofovir alone, or non-tenofovir-based antiviral regimen either alone or in combination with HBV for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HBV in HIV-positive pregnant women co-infected with HBV.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS (Bireme), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (Web of Science) on 30 January 2023. We manually searched the reference lists of included trials, searched on-line trial registries, and contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies for any further potential trials.

We aimed to include randomised clinical trials comparing tenofovir-based antiviral combination regimens (anti-HIV regimen with lopinavir-ritonavir therapy, or any other antiviral therapy, and two drugs with activity against HBV, specifically, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), plus lamivudine or emtricitabine) with placebo alone, or tenofovir alone, or non-tenofovir-based antiviral regimen (zidovudine, lamivudine, telbivudine, emtricitabine, entecavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or any other antiviral therapy) either alone or in combination with at least two other antivirals.

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included all-cause infant mortality, proportion of infants with serious adverse events, proportion of infants with HBV mother-to-child transmission, all-cause maternal mortality, and proportion of mothers with serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included proportion of infants with adverse events not considered serious, proportion of mothers with detectable HBV DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) (before delivery), maternal hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) to HBe-antibody seroconversion (before delivery) and maternal adverse events not considered serious. We used RevMan Web to carry out analyses and presented results, where feasible, using a random-effects model and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed sensitivity analysis. We assessed risk of bias using predefined domains, assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

Five completed trials were included, of which four trials contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. They included a total of 533 participants randomised to tenofovir-based antiviral combination regimens (196 participants) versus control (337 participants). The control groups received non-tenofovir-based antiviral regimens either as zidovudine alone (three trials) or as a combination of zidovudine, lamivudine and lopinavir-ritonavir (five trials). None of the trials used placebo or tenofovir alone. All trials were at unclear risk of bias. Four trials used intention-to-treat analyses. In the remaining trial, two participants in the intervention group and two in the control group were lost to follow-up. However, the outcomes of these four participants were not described. Tenofovir-based antiviral combination regimen versus control We are very uncertain about the effect of a tenofovir-based antiviral combination regimen versus control on all-cause infant mortality (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 6.96; participants = 132; trials = 1; very low-certainty evidence); proportion of infants with serious adverse events (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.43; participants = 132; trials = 1; very low-certainty evidence), and proportion of mothers with serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; participants = 262; trials = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported data on the proportion of infants with HBV mother-to-child transmission and all-cause maternal mortality. We are also very uncertain about the effect of tenofovir-based antiviral combination regimens versus control on the proportion of infants with adverse events not considered serious (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.68; participants = 31; trials = 1; very low-certainty evidence), and proportion of mothers with detectable HBV DNA (before delivery) (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.02; participants = 169; trials = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported data on maternal hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) to HBe-antibody seroconversion (before delivery) and maternal adverse events not considered serious. All trials received support from industry.

We do not know what the effects of tenofovir-based antiviral combination regimens are on all-cause infant mortality, proportion of infants with serious adverse events and proportion of mothers with serious adverse events, proportion of infants with adverse events not considered serious, and proportion of mothers with detectable HBV DNA before delivery because the certainty of evidence was very low. Only one or two trials, with insufficient power, contributed data for analyses. We lack randomised clinical trials at low risk of systematic and random errors, and fully reporting all-cause infant mortality, serious adverse events and reporting on clinical and laboratory outcomes, such as infants with HBV mother-to-child transmission, all-cause maternal mortality, maternal hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) to HBe-antibody seroconversion before delivery and maternal adverse events not considered serious.

Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development of complications of portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Advanced chronic liver disease is considered responsible for more than one million deaths annually worldwide. No treatment is available to specifically target fibrosis and cirrhosis; liver transplantation remains the only curative option. Researchers are investigating strategies to restore liver functionality to avoid or slow progression towards end-stage liver disease. Cytokine mobilisation of stem cells from the bone marrow to the liver could improve liver function. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a 175-amino-acid protein currently available for mobilisation of haematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow. Multiple courses of G-CSF, with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, might be associated with accelerated hepatic regeneration, improved liver function, and survival.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of G-CSF with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, compared with no intervention or placebo in people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers (October 2022) together with reference-checking and web-searching to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language and document type.

We only included randomised clinical trials comparing G-CSF, independent of the schedule of administration, as a single treatment or combined with stem or progenitor cell infusion, or with other medical co-interventions, with no intervention or placebo, in adults with chronic compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease or acute-on-chronic liver failure. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, outcomes reported, or language.

We followed standard Cochrane procedures. All-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life were our primary outcomes, and liver disease-related morbidity, non-serious adverse events, and no improvement of liver function scores were our secondary outcomes. We undertook meta-analyses, based on intention-to-treat, and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 statistic values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE, evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses, and conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

We included 20 trials (1419 participants; sample size ranged from 28 to 259), which lasted between 11 and 57 months. Nineteen trials included only participants with decompensated cirrhosis; in one trial, 30% had compensated cirrhosis. The included trials were conducted in Asia (15), Europe (four), and the USA (one). Not all trials provided data for our outcomes. All trials reported data allowing intention-to-treat analyses. The experimental intervention consisted of G-CSF alone or G-CSF plus any of the following: growth hormone, erythropoietin, N-acetyl cysteine, infusion of CD133-positive haemopoietic stem cells, or infusion of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells. The control group consisted of no intervention in 15 trials and placebo (normal saline) in five trials. Standard medical therapy (antivirals, alcohol abstinence, nutrition, diuretics, β-blockers, selective intestinal decontamination, pentoxifylline, prednisolone, and other supportive measures depending on the clinical status and requirement) was administered equally to the trial groups. Very low-certainty evidence suggested a decrease in mortality with G-CSF, administered alone or in combination with any of the above, versus placebo (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I2 = 75%; 1419 participants; 20 trials). Very low-certainty evidence suggested no difference in serious adverse events (G-CSF alone or in combination versus placebo: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.61; I2 = 66%; 315 participants; three trials). Eight trials, with 518 participants, reported no serious adverse events. Two trials, with 165 participants, used two components of the quality of life score for assessment, with ranges from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better quality of life, with a mean increase from baseline of the physical component summary of 20.7 (95% CI 17.4 to 24.0; very low-certainty evidence) and a mean increase from baseline of the mental component summary of 27.8 (95% CI 12.3 to 43.3; very low-certainty evidence). G-CSF, alone or in combination, suggested a beneficial effect on the proportion of participants who developed one or more liver disease-related complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; I2 = 62%; 195 participants; four trials; very low-certainty evidence). When we analysed the occurrences of single complications, there was no suggestion of a difference between G-CSF, alone or in combination, versus control, in participants in need of liver transplantation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.85; 692 participants; five trials), in the development of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.30; 520 participants; six trials), in the occurrence of variceal bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23; 614 participants; eight trials), and in the development of encephalopathy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.01; 605 participants; seven trials) (very low-certainty evidence). The same comparison suggested that G-CSF reduces the development of infections (including sepsis) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84; 583 participants; eight trials) and does not improve liver function scores (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; 319 participants; two trials) (very low-certainty evidence).

G-CSF, alone or in combination, seems to decrease mortality in people with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease of whatever aetiology and with or without acute-on-chronic liver failure, but the certainty of evidence is very low because of high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The results of trials conducted in Asia and Europe were discrepant; this could not be explained by differences in participant selection, intervention, and outcome measurement. Data on serious adverse events and health-related quality of life were few and inconsistently reported. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the occurrence of one or more liver disease-related complications. We lack high-quality, global randomised clinical trials assessing the effect of G-CSF on clinically relevant outcomes.

The use of an 'eversion' technique is not unequivocally proven to be superior to carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty. An up-to-date systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of these two techniques.

RCTs comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic and significant (≥50 %) stenosis of the internal carotid artery were enrolled. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke and mortality rate, (a) symptomatic arterial occlusion or restenosis, and adverse events not critical for decision making.

Four RCTs were included with 1272 surgical procedures for carotid stenosis; eversion technique n = 643 and carotid endarterectomy with patch closure n = 629. Meta-analysis comparing both techniques showed, with a very low certainty of evidence, that eversion technique might decrease the number of patients with serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64; p ≤ 0.01). However, no difference was found on the other outcomes. TSA demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to GRADE.

This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of any difference between eversion technique and carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery. These conclusions are based on data obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to ESVS guidelines should not be abandoned.

Non-randomized studies of intervention effects (NRS), also called quasi-experiments, provide useful decision support about development impacts. However, the assumptions underpinning them are usually untestable, their verification resting on empirical replication. The internal replication study aims to do this by comparing results from a causal benchmark study, usually a randomized controlled trial (RCT), with those from an NRS conducted at the same time in the sampled population. We aimed to determine the credibility and generalizability of findings in internal replication studies in development economics, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched for internal replication studies of RCTs conducted on socioeconomic interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We critically appraised the benchmark randomized studies, using an adapted tool. We extracted and statistically synthesized empirical measures of bias. We included 600 estimates of correspondence between NRS and benchmark RCTs. All internal replication studies were found to have at least "some concerns" about bias and some had high risk of bias. We found that study designs with selection on unobservables, in particular regression discontinuity, on average produced absolute standardized bias estimates that were approximately zero, that is, equivalent to the estimates produced by RCTs. But study conduct also mattered. For example, matching using pre-tests and nearest neighbor algorithms corresponded more closely to the benchmarks. The findings from this systematic review confirm that NRS can produce unbiased estimates. Authors of internal replication studies should publish pre-analysis protocols to enhance their credibility.

The finding that exercise is inversely related to metabolic syndrome after transplantation is novel and suggests that exercise interventions might provide a means for reducing metabolic syndrome complications in liver transplantation recipients. The use of exercise for increasing the physical activity daily levels by more frequent, higher intensity, and longer duration of training sessions, or the sum of these components may be necessary to counteract the effects of the pretransplant reduced activity, metabolic disturbances, and post-transplant immunosuppression, as well as improve physical function and aerobic capacity following liver transplantation. Regular physical activity has a long-term positive impact on recovery following various surgical procedures including transplantation, giving people the opportunity to return to an active life with their families, in society, and in their professional life. Likewise, specific muscle strength training may attenuate the loss of strength after liver transplantation.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise-based interventions in adults after liver transplantation compared to no exercise, sham interventions, or another type of exercise.

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 2 September 2022.

We included randomised clinical trials in liver transplantation recipients comparing any type of exercise with no exercise, sham interventions, or another type of exercise.

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality; 2. serious adverse events; and 3. health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 4. a composite of cardiovascular mortality and cardiac disease; 5. aerobic capacity; 6. muscle strength; 7. morbidity; 8. non-serious adverse events; and 9. cardiovascular disease post-transplantation. We assessed risk of bias of the individual trials using RoB 1, described the interventions using the TIDieR checklist, and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

We included three randomised clinical trials. The trials randomised 241 adults with liver transplantation, of which 199 participants completed the trials. The trials were conducted in the USA, Spain, and Turkey. They compared exercise versus usual care. The duration of the interventions ranged from two to 10 months. One trial reported that 69% of participants who received the exercise intervention were adherent to the exercise prescription. A second trial reported a 94% adherence to the exercise programme, with participants attending 45/48 sessions. The remaining trial reported a 96.8% adherence to the exercise intervention during the hospitalisation period. Two trials received funding; one from the National Center for Research Resources (US) and the other from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spain). The remaining trial did not receive funding. All trials were at an overall high risk of bias, derived from high risk of selective reporting bias and attrition bias in two trials. The results on all-cause mortality showed a higher risk of death in the exercise group versus the control group, but these results are very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 3.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 13.37; 2 trials, 165 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report data on serious adverse events excluding mortality or non-serious adverse events. However, all trials reported that there were no adverse effects associated with exercise. We are very uncertain on whether exercise compared with usual care has a beneficial or harmful effect on health-related quality of life assessed using the 36-item Short Form Physical Functioning subscale at the end of the intervention (mean difference (MD) 10.56, 95% CI -0.12 to 21.24; 2 trials, 169 participants; I² = 71%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported data on composite of cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, and cardiovascular disease post-transplantation. We are very uncertain if there are differences in aerobic capacity in terms of VO2peak at the end of the intervention between groups (MD 0.80, 95% CI -0.80 to 2.39; 3 trials, 199 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if there are differences in muscle strength at end of the intervention between groups (MD 9.91, 95% CI -3.68 to 23.50; 3 trials, 199 participants; I² = 44%; very low-certainty evidence). One trial measured perceived fatigue using the Checklist Individual Strength (CIST). Participants in the exercise group showed a clinically important lower degree of fatigue perception than participants in the control group, with a mean reduction of 40 points in the CIST (95% CI 15.62 to 64.38; 1 trial, 30 participants).  We identified three ongoing studies.

Based on very low-certainty evidence in our systematic review, we are very uncertain of the role of exercise training (aerobic, resistance-based exercises, or both) in affecting mortality, health-related quality of life, and physical function (i.e. aerobic capacity and muscle strength) in liver transplant recipients. There were few data on the composite of cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease post-transplantation, and adverse event outcomes. We lack larger trials with blinded outcome assessment, designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

In low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs), the biggest contributing factors to the global burden of disease in childhood are deaths due to respiratory illness and diarrhoea, both of which are closely related to use of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services by households. However, current estimates of the health impacts of WASH interventions use self-reported morbidity, which may fail to capture longer-term or more severe impacts. Reported mortality is thought to be less prone to bias than other reported measures. This study aimed to answer the question: What are the impacts of WASH interventions on reported childhood mortality in L&MICs?

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, using a published protocol. Systematic searches of 11 academic databases and trial registries, plus organisational repositories, were undertaken to locate studies of WASH interventions, which were published in peer review journals or other sources (e.g., organisational reports and working papers). Intervention studies of WASH improvements implemented under endemic disease circumstances in L&MICs were eligible, which reported findings at any time until March 2020. We used the participant flow data supplied in response to journal editors' calls for greater transparency. Data were collected by two authors working independently. We included evidence from 24 randomized and 11 nonrandomized studies of WASH interventions from all global regions, incorporating 2,600 deaths. Effects of 48 WASH treatment arms were included in analysis. We critically appraised and synthesised evidence using meta-analysis to improve statistical power. We found WASH interventions are associated with a significant reduction of 17% in the odds of all-cause mortality in childhood (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74, 0.92, evidence from 38 interventions), and a significant reduction in diarrhoea mortality of 45% (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.84; 10 interventions). Further analysis by WASH technology indicated interventions providing improved water in quantity to households were most consistently associated with reductions in all-cause mortality. Community-wide sanitation was most consistently associated with reductions in diarrhoea mortality. Around one-half of the included studies were assessed as being at "moderate risk of bias" in attributing mortality in childhood to the WASH intervention, and no studies were found to be at "low risk of bias." The review should be updated to incorporate additional published and unpublished participant flow data.

The findings are congruent with theories of infectious disease transmission. Washing with water presents a barrier to respiratory illness and diarrhoea, which are the two biggest contributors to all-cause mortality in childhood in L&MICs. Community-wide sanitation halts the spread of diarrhoea. We observed that evidence synthesis can provide new findings, going beyond the underlying data from trials to generate crucial insights for policy. Transparent reporting in trials creates opportunities for research synthesis to answer questions about mortality, which individual studies of interventions cannot be reliably designed to address.

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence of the primary research designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, if RCTs are incompletely reported, the methodological rigor with which they were conducted cannot be reliably evaluated and it may not be possible to replicate the intervention. Missing information also may limit the reader's ability to evaluate the external validity of a trial. Reporting guidelines are available for clinical trials in human healthcare (CONSORT), livestock populations (REFLECT), and preclinical experimental research involving animals (ARRIVE 2.0). The PetSORT guidelines complement these existing guidelines, providing recommendations for reporting controlled trials in pet dogs and cats. The rationale and scientific background are explained for each of the 25 items in the PetSORT reporting recommendations checklist, with examples from well-reported trials.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015.

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate.