BackgroundChildhood obesity is a global public health issue, and the status of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as instruction manuals for the management of childhood obesity remains unclear. This study aims to identify and apprise the methodological and reporting quality of CPGs focused on childhood obesity and provide an overview of key recommendations.MethodsDatabases and websites reporting guidelines were searched from January, 2018 to September, 2023. The methodological quality was graded using the AGREE II, and RIGHT was used to assess the reporting completeness.ResultsAmong the six included CPGs, two were rated as high quality and considered "Recommended" and three were reported no less than 80%. CPGs included 184 recommendations cover diagnosis, assessment and management of complications, interventions and prevention. The diagnostic criteria for children with obesity over 2 years of age are based on normative BMI percentiles, depending on sex and age. CPGs recommended the delivery of multi-component behavior-changed interventions included controlling diet and increasing physical activity. Pharmacological interventions and bariatric surgery are considered as complementary therapies.ConclusionCPGs for childhood obesity should emphasize the impact of psychological factors and consider the provision of interventions from multiple settings, and could consider the role of complementary alternative therapies.ImpactSix guidelines have been published in the past 5 years focusing children obesity.Recommendations covered diagnosis, multiple intervention and prevention.Guidelines should focus on the role of complementary alternative therapies.Guidelines should emphasize the impact of psychological factors.Guidelines should consider the provision of interventions from multiple settings.

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.

BackgroundAn increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic values of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in infectious diseases (IDs).AimThis umbrella analysis aimed to assess the potential risk of bias in existing SRs and to summarize the published diagnostic values of NGS in different IDs.MethodWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023 for SRs assessing the diagnostic validity of NGS for IDs. Two investigators independently determined review eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated reporting quality, risk of bias, methodological quality, and evidence certainty in the included SRs.ResultsEleven SRs were analyzed. Most SRs exhibited a moderate level of reporting quality, while a serious risk of bias was observed in all SRs. The diagnostic performance of NGS in detecting pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection was notably robust, showing excellent sensitivity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, very low certainty) and specificity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97, very low certainty). NGS exhibited high specificity for central nervous system infection, bacterial meningoencephalitis, and tuberculous meningitis. The sensitivity to these infectious diseases was moderate. NGS demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for multiple infections and pulmonary infections.ConclusionThis umbrella analysis indicates that NGS is a promising technique for diagnosing pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection with excellent sensitivity and specificity. More high-quality original research and SRs are needed to verify the current findings.

IMPORTANCE Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infection children younger than 5 years; effective prevention strategies are urgently needed. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of RSV infection in infants and children. DATA SOURCES In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception to March 2022. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials that enrolled infants at high risk of RSV infection to receive a monoclonal antibody or placebowere included. Keywords and extensive vocabulary related to monoclonal antibodies, RSV, and randomized clinical trials were searched. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was used. Teams of 2 reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted using a consistency model under the frequentist framework. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, RSV-related hospitalization, RSV-related infection, drug-related adverse events, intensive care unit admission, supplemental oxygen use, and mechanical ventilation use. RESULTS Fifteen randomized clinical trials involving 18 395 participants were eligible; 14 were synthesized, with 18 042 total participants (median age at study entry, 3.99 months [IQR, 3.25-6.58 months]; median proportion of males, 52.37%[IQR, 50.49%-53.85%]). Compared with placebo, with moderate- to high-certainty evidence, nirsevimab, palivizumab, and motavizumab were associated with significantly reduced RSV-related infections per 1000 participants (nirsevimab: -123 [95% CI, -138 to -100]; palivizumab: -108 [95% CI, -127 to -82]; motavizumab: -136 [95% CI, -146 to -125]) and RSV-related hospitalizations per 1000 participants (nirsevimab: -54 [95% CI, -64 to -38; palivizumab: -39 [95% CI, -48 to -28]; motavizumab: -48 [95% CI, - 58 to -33]). With moderate-certainty evidence, both motavizumab and palivizumab were associated with significant reductions in intensive care unit admissions per 1000 participants (-8 [95% CI, -9 to -4] and -5 [95% CI, -7 to 0], respectively) and supplemental oxygen use per 1000 participants (-59 [95% CI, -63 to -54] and -55 [95% CI, -61 to -41], respectively), and nirsevimab was associated with significantly reduced supplemental oxygen use per 1000 participants (-59 [95% CI, -65 to -40]). No significant differences were found in all-cause mortality and drug-related adverse events. Suptavumab did not show any significant benefits for the outcomes of interest. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, motavizumab, nirsevimab, and palivizumab were associated with substantial benefits in the prevention of RSV infection, without a significant increase in adverse events compared with placebo. However, more research is needed to confirm the present conclusions, especially for safety and cost-effectiveness.

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.