OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the relationship between stillbirth and various perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases were searched up to July 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cohort studies that reported the association between stillbirth and perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies were included. METHODS: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Rand Stata software. We used random-effects models to pool each outcome of interest. We performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the potential heterogeneity. The certainty (quality) of evidence assessment was performed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Nineteen cohort studies were included, involving 4,855,153 participants. From these studies, we identified 28,322 individuals with previous stillbirths who met the eligibility criteria. After adjusting for confounders, evidence of low to moderate certainty indicated that compared with women with previous live births, women with previous stillbirths had higher risks of recurrent stillbirth (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-3.56), preterm birth (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-4.80), neonatal death (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% confidence interval, 2.65-6.79), small for gestational age/intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8), low birthweight (odds ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-7.52), placental abruption (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.98), instrumental delivery (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-3.11), labor induction (odds ratio, 4.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-8.88), cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.73), elective cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-3.23), and emergency cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-3.06) in subsequent pregnancies, but had a lower rate of spontaneous labor (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.36). However, there was no association between previous stillbirth and preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-4.70) in subsequent pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide a more comprehensive understanding of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with previous stillbirth. These findings could be used to inform counseling for couples who are considering pregnancy after a previous stillbirth.

Importance Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate the labor-intensive process of systematic reviews. However, the exact methods and reliability remain uncertain. Objective To explore the feasibility and reliability of using LLMs to assess risk of bias (ROB) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design, Setting, and Participants A survey study was conducted between August 10, 2023, and October 30, 2023. Thirty RCTs were selected from published systematic reviews. Main Outcomes and Measures A structured prompt was developed to guide ChatGPT (LLM 1) and Claude (LLM 2) in assessing the ROB in these RCTs using a modified version of the Cochrane ROB tool developed by the CLARITY group at McMaster University. Each RCT was assessed twice by both models, and the results were documented. The results were compared with an assessment by 3 experts, which was considered a criterion standard. Correct assessment rates, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 scores were calculated to reflect accuracy, both overall and for each domain of the Cochrane ROB tool; consistent assessment rates and Cohen kappa were calculated to gauge consistency; and assessment time was calculated to measure efficiency. Performance between the 2 models was compared using risk differences. Results Both models demonstrated high correct assessment rates. LLM 1 reached a mean correct assessment rate of 84.5% (95% CI, 81.5%-87.3%), and LLM 2 reached a significantly higher rate of 89.5% (95% CI, 87.0%-91.8%). The risk difference between the 2 models was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.09). In most domains, domain-specific correct rates were around 80% to 90%; however, sensitivity below 0.80 was observed in domains 1 (random sequence generation), 2 (allocation concealment), and 6 (other concerns). Domains 4 (missing outcome data), 5 (selective outcome reporting), and 6 had F1 scores below 0.50. The consistent rates between the 2 assessments were 84.0% for LLM 1 and 87.3% for LLM 2. LLM 1's kappa exceeded 0.80 in 7 and LLM 2's in 8 domains. The mean (SD) time needed for assessment was 77 (16) seconds for LLM 1 and 53 (12) seconds for LLM 2. Conclusions In this survey study of applying LLMs for ROB assessment, LLM 1 and LLM 2 demonstrated substantial accuracy and consistency in evaluating RCTs, suggesting their potential as supportive tools in systematic review processes.

COVID-19 is not only associated with substantial acute liver and kidney injuries, but also with an elevated risk of post-acute sequelae involving the kidney and liver system. We aimed to investigate whether COVID-19 exposure increases the long-term risk of kidney and liver disease, and what are the magnitudes of these associations. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, , and the Living Overview of the Evidence COVID-19 Repository for cohort studies estimating the association between COVID-19 and kidney and liver outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Fifteen cohort studies with more than 32 million participants were included in the systematic review COVID-19 was associated with a 35% greater risk of kidney diseases (10 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence) and 54% greater risk of liver disease (3 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence). The absolute increases due to COVID-19 for acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and liver test abnormality were 3, 8, and 3 per 1000 persons, respectively. Subgroup analyses found no differences between different type of kidney and liver diseases. The findings provide further evidence for the association between COVID-19 and incident kidney and liver conditions. The absolute magnitude of the effect of COVID-19 on kidney and liver outcomes was, however, relatively small.

Background: To refine the methods of developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for integrative ChineseWestern medicine (ICWM), promoting the formation of trustworthy, implementable recommendations that integrate the strengths of Chinese and Western medicine. Methods: Using a nominal group technique (NGT) approach, a multidisciplinary expert panel was established. The panel identified key methodological issues in ICWM-CPG development through literature review and iterative discussions, and formulated methodological proposals to address these issues. The final set of proposals was achieved through consensus among the panel members. Results: The collaborative effort resulted in the identification of five pivotal methodological issues and the subsequent establishment of 22 specific recommendations. These encompass strict adherence to renowned standards, such as those proposed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Guidelines International Network (G -I -N), the employment of methodologies like the GRADE approach and RIGHT statement, the strategic constitution of a balanced development group, the adept identification of ICWM-focused clinical inquiries, the nuanced integration of diverse evidence sources, and the detailed crafting of transparent, implementable recommendations. Conclusions: This study concentrates on the most crucial and prevalent methodological issues in ICWM-CPG development, proposing a series of recommendations. These suggestions result from a multidisciplinary expert consensus, aiming to provide methodological guidance for ICWM-CPG developers, building upon the current foundational methodologies.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

Gut microbiota has been identified as a unique endocrine organ linked to the development of cardiovascular disease and other illnesses, especially deteriorated in overweight and obese postmenopausal women. The object of this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of oral supplementation with probiotics for overweight and obese postmenopausal women. We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to April 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also performed a hand search by reviewing reference lists to identify trials. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB). Two reviewers independently selected studies and collected data. There were 6 studies from 5 RCTs with 281 participants in this systematic review. Compared with the placebo, the probiotics supplementation group had reductions in insulin (MD - 4.20 IU/L (95% CI - 8.11 to - 0.30 IU/L), I-2 = 54%), HOMA-IR (MD - 1.25 (95% CI - 2.49 to - 0.01), I-2 = 50%), and TNF-alpha (MD - 0.12 pg/mL (95% CI - 0.22 to - 0.01 pg/mL), I-2 = 44%). Improvements were also shown in body adiposity and lipid profile, but these effects were nonsignificant. In addition to body adiposity and cardiovascular risk markers, one trial showed the administration of probiotics also had an effect on iron metabolism. In conclusion, probiotics have a potential benefit on glucose metabolism and inflammatory process in overweight and obese postmenopausal women, but this effect is mild. It demonstrates that oral probiotics supplementation can be a complementary treatment for improving the fitness of postmenopausal women with overweight and obesity.

BackgroundPharmacological treatment is common in practice and widely used for the management of insomnia. However, evidence comparing the relative effectiveness, safety, and certainty of evidence among drug classes and individual drugs for insomnia are still lacking. This study aimed to determine the relative effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of drugs for insomnia.MethodsIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to January 10, 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared insomnia drugs with placebo or an active comparator in adults with insomnia. We conducted random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses to summarize the evidence, and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty, categorize interventionsand present the findings.ResultsA total of 148 articles met our eligibility criteria; these included 153 trials which enrolled 46,412 participants and assessed 36 individual drugs from eight drug classes. Compared with placebo, both subjectively and objectively measured total sleep time were significantly improved with non-benzodiazepine (subjective: mean difference [MD] 25.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.49-34.64, low certainty; objective: MD 22.34, 95% CI 7.64-37.05, high certainty), antidepressants (subjective: MD 54.40, 95% CI 34.96-75.83, low certainty; objective: MD 35.64, 95% CI 13.05-58.24, high certainty), and orexin receptor antagonists (subjective: MD 21.62, 95% CI 0.84-42.40, high certainty; objective: MD 31.81, 95% CI 2.66-60.95, high certainty); of which doxepin, almorexant, suvorexant, and lemborexant were among the relatively effective drugs with relatively good tolerability and lower risks of any adverse events (AEs). Both subjectively and objectively measured sleep onset latency were significantly shortened with non-benzodiazepines (subjective: MD - 10.12, 95% CI - 13.84 to - 6.40, moderate certainty; objective: MD - 12.11, 95% CI - 19.31 to - 4.90, moderate certainty) and melatonin receptor agonists (subjective: MD - 7.73, 95% CI - 15.21 to - 0.26, high certainty; objective: MD - 7.04, 95% CI - 12.12 to - 1.95, moderate certainty); in particular, zopiclone was among the most effective drugs with a lower risk of any AEs but worse tolerability. Non-benzodiazepines could significantly decrease both subjective and objective measured wake time after sleep onset (subjective: MD - 16.67, 95% CI - 21.79 to - 11.56, moderate certainty; objective: MD - 13.92, 95% CI - 22.71 to - 5.14, moderate certainty).ConclusionsNon-benzodiazepines probably improve total sleep time, sleep onset latency, and wake time after sleep onset. Other insomnia drug classes and individual drugs also showed potential benefits in improving insomnia symptoms. However, the choice of insomnia drugs should be based on the phenotype of insomnia presented, as well as each drug's safety and tolerability.Protocol registration PROSPERO (CRD42019138790).

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This study has three main objectives: (1) To examine the time duration from title registration to publication of the protocol for a Campbell systematic review and publication of the completed Campbell systematic review; (2) To describe publication times in accordance with the characteristics of the reviews, which include year of publication, type of review, number of authors, number of collaborative institutions, the time gap between the date the search was conducted and review publication, and the length and complexity of the included review (including the number of pages, the number of tables and figures, the number of studies included in the review, the number and type of analyses undertaken, and the number of references); (3) To describe the differences in publication times between Campbell Review Groups.

Background: COVID-19 might be a risk factor for various chronic diseases. However, the association between COVID-19 and the risk of incident diabetes remains unclear. We aimed to meta-analyze evidence on the relative risk of incident diabetes in patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched from December 2019 to June 8, 2022. We included cohort studies that provided data on the number, proportion, or relative risk of diabetes after confirming the COVID-19 diagnosis. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool the relative risk with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. Prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the potential influencing factors. We converted the relative risk to the absolute risk difference to present the evidence. This study was registered in advance (PROSPERO CRD42022337841). Main findings: Ten articles involving 11 retrospective cohorts with a total of 47.1 million participants proved eligible. We found a 64 % greater risk (RR = 1.64, 95%CI: 1.51 to 1.79) of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls, which could increase the number of diabetes events by 701 (558 more to 865 more) per 10,000 persons. We detected significant subgroup effects for type of diabetes and sex. Type 2 diabetes has a higher relative risk than type 1. Moreover, men may be at a higher risk of overall diabetes than women. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. No evidence was found for publication bias. Conclusions: COVID-19 is strongly associated with the risk of incident diabetes, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We should be aware of the risk of developing diabetes after COVID-19 and prepare for the associated health problems, given the large and growing number of people infected with COVID-19. However, the body of evidence still needs to be strengthened.

AimsWe aimed to determine the effects of different exercise modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until July 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on exercise in adults with T2DM. Paired reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. ResultsA total of 106 RCTs that enroled eight exercise modalities with 7438 patients were included. Six exercise modalities, except unsupervised aerobic/resistance exercise, significantly reduced glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), with mean differences (MDs) ranging from 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-1.08) to 0.34 (95% CI: 0.17-0.52), low to high certainty, in comparison with no exercise. The evidence of low to moderate certainty showed that supervised aerobic/resistance exercise improved glycaemic control, body weight, blood pressure, and blood lipid profiles compared with no exercise. Flexibility exercise may be associated with glycaemic control (HbA1c: MD = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.34-1.08); fasting plasma glucose (MD = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.78-2.17), and weight loss (MD = 1.80, 95% CI: 0.85-2.75) compared with controls, but not blood pressure and lipid profiles. Balance exercise showed the largest benefit in improving total cholesterol (MD = 52.81, 95% CI: 28.47-77.16) and low certainty. We found no significant differences between exercises and the triacylglycerol (TG) level. ConclusionsOverall, our network meta-analyses support the recommendation for exercise in patients with T2DM, especially supervised exercises. Limited evidence supports the benefits of flexibility and balance exercises. The effectiveness of exercise modalities for TG reduction remains unclear.