OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 20 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian random effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS 23 randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis performed on 26 June 2020. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low because of risk of bias (lack of blinding) and serious imprecision. Glucocorticoids were the only intervention with evidence for a reduction in death compared with standard care (risk difference 37 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 63 fewer to 11 fewer, moderate certainty) and mechanical ventilation (31 fewer per 1000 patients, 47 fewer to 9 fewer, moderate certainty). These estimates are based on direct evidence; network estimates for glucocorticoids compared with standard care were less precise because of network heterogeneity. Three drugs might reduce symptom duration compared with standard care: hydroxychloroquine (mean difference -4.5 days, low certainty), remdesivir (-2.6 days, moderate certainty), and lopinavir-ritonavir (-1.2 days, low certainty). Hydroxychloroquine might increase the risk of adverse events compared with the other interventions, and remdesivir probably does not substantially increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. No other interventions included enough patients to meaningfully interpret adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION Glucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care. The effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations.

Purpose: By conducting a systematic review, we describe strategies to actively disseminate knowledge or facilitate practice change among healthcare providers caring for children with cancer and we evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies. Data sources: We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PsychINFO. Study selection: Fully published primary studies were included if they evaluated one or more professional intervention strategies to actively disseminate knowledge or facilitate practice change in pediatric cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Data extraction: Data extracted included study characteristics and strategies evaluated. In studies with a quantitative analysis of patient outcomes, the relationship between study-level characteristics and statistically significant primary analyses was evaluated. Results of data synthesis: Of 20 644 titles and abstracts screened, 146 studies were retrieved in full and 60 were included. In 20 studies, quantitative evaluation of patient outcomes was examined and a primary outcome was stated. Eighteen studies were 'before and after' design; there were no randomized studies. All studies were at risk for bias. Interrupted time series was never the primary analytic approach. No specific strategy type was successful at improving patient outcomes. Conclusions: Literature describing strategies to facilitate practice change in pediatric cancer is emerging. However, major methodological limitations exist. Studies with robust designs are required to identify effective strategies to effect practice change.