Purpose of review: Glomerulonephritis refers to a rare group of diseases characterized by glomerular inflammation, which collectively are a common cause of kidney failure. Until recently, there was a lack of high-quality clinical trials to inform the care of patients with glomerulonephritides. We identified examples of successful translational research spanning from basic science to clinical applications, and highlight gaps in implementation science. Sources of information: The focus of our review was derived from discussions between health care professionals, researchers, and patient partners. We also performed literature searches pertaining to the treatment of glomerulonephritis in PubMed and Google Scholar. Methods: Examples of successful knowledge translation were generated through review of new evidence in the past 5 years and by iterative discussions by the authors. We then conducted a narrative review of several themes related to knowledge translation in glomerulonephritis. This was complemented by an interview with a patient partner to provide an example of a patient's perspective living with glomerulonephritis. Key findings: We summarized selected recent advances in glomerulonephritis and its knowledge translation in the following domains: (1) identification of auto-antibodies in membranous nephropathy and minimal change disease; (2) clinical trials of novel targeted therapies for IgA nephropathy and lupus nephritis, which have led to approval of new treatments; (3) developments in research networks and clinical trials in glomerulonephritis; (4) recognition of the importance in developing standardized patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials; and (5) barriers in knowledge translation including access to medication. Limitations: A systematic search of the literature and formal assessment of quality of evidence were beyond the scope of this review.

To explore the current state of research on off-label drug use in children and identify the existing research gaps in this topic. Six literature databases were searched to identify studies focusing exclusively on off-label drug use in children (aged < 18 years) published in Chinese or English between 2016 and 2021. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov for pediatric clinical trials conducted in the same period and compared the numbers of studies on off-label use and clinical trials for the most commonly reported drugs and drug types. Our search revealed 568 studies on off-label drug use. Almost half of the studies (n = 240) were cross-sectional. A total of 212 specific drugs or drug types were addressed in 361 studies, the most frequent being antipsychotic agents (n = 12), dexmedetomidine (n = 10), and rituximab (n = 8). Antipsychotic agents were also the most common type of drug examined in clinical trials in children. We identified a total of 435 different types of off-label use, the top three being unapproved indication (n = 157), population (n = 96), or age (n = 36). Only about one-third of the studies reported collecting informed consent (n = 195) or having ethics committee approval (n = 166). Conclusions: Off-label use of antipsychotics in children is widely reported in the literature. We suggest pediatric researchers to consider the number of studies on off-label use and existing clinical trials on different drugs when selecting target drugs for new studies and systematic reviews. What is Known: center dot There exist a large number of studies on off-label drug use in children. What is New: center dot This is the first scoping review of studies on off-label drug use in children. center dot Off-label use of antipsychotic agents is widely reported.

Objective: To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect. Study design: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect. Results: We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled < 50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect. Conclusions: There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive literature assessing associations between religiosity/spirituality and health, few studies have investigated the clinical applicability of this evidence. The purpose of this paper was to assess the impact of religious/spiritual interventions (RSI) through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Method A systematic review was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Collaboration, Embase and SciELO. Through the use of a Boolean expression, articles were included if they: (i) investigated mental health outcomes; (ii) had a design consistent with RCTs. We excluded protocols involving intercessory prayer or distance healing. The study was conducted in two phases by reading: (1) title and abstracts; (2) full papers and assessing their methodological quality. Then, a meta-analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Through this method, 4751 papers were obtained, of which 23 remained included. The meta-analysis showed significant effects of RSI on anxiety general symptoms (p < 0.001) and in subgroups: meditation (p < 0.001); psychotherapy (p = 0.02); 1 month of follow-up (p < 0.001); and comparison groups with interventions (p < 0.001). Two significant differences were found in depressive symptoms: between 1 and 6 months and comparison groups with interventions (p = 0.05). In general, studies have shown that RSI decreased stress, alcoholism and depression. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs on RSI showed additional benefits including reduction of clinical symptoms (mainly anxiety). The diversity of protocols and outcomes associated with a lack of standardization of interventions point to the need for further studies evaluating the use of religiosity/spirituality as a complementary treatment in health care

Though snake antivenom (SAV) is the mainstay of therapy for poisonous snake bites, there is no universally accepted standard regimen regarding the optimum dose (low vs. high). We therefore, undertook this systematic review to address this important research question. We searched all the published literature through the major electronic databases till August 2014. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Eligible trials compared low versus high dose SAV in poisonous snake bite. The review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42014009700). Of 36 citations retrieved, a total of 5 RCTs (n = 473) were included in the final analyses. Three trials were open-label, 4 conducted in Indian sub-continent and 1 in Brazil. The doses of SAV varied in the high dose group from 40 ml to 550 ml, and in the low dose group from 20 ml to 220 ml. There was no significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes except duration of hospital stay, which was lower in the low dose group. The GRADE evidence generated was of "very low quality." Low-dose SAV is equivalent or may be superior to high-dose SAV in management of poisonous snake bite. Low dose is also highly cost-effective as compared to the high dose. But the GRADE evidence generated was of "very low quality" as most were open label trials. Further trials are needed to make definitive recommendations regarding the dose and these should also include children <9 years of age.

Objective: A systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing depression treatments in primary care for Latinos is conducted. The authors rate the methodological quality of studies, examine cultural and linguistic adaptations, summarize clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness findings, and draw conclusions for improving depression care among this diverse population. Method: Electronic bibliographic databases, Web sites, and manual searches are used to identify nine peer-reviewed articles covering four RCTs. Results: Across trials, collaborative care models were more effective than usual care in reducing depression and improving functioning and accessibility to guideline-congruent care. Conclusion: The use of evidence-based treatments in primary care seems to be an effective and cost-effective strategy to reduce mental health care disparities among Latinos served in primary care.