IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic posed a detrimental impact on the conduct of non-COVID-19 related clinical trials, raising concerns about the completeness of these studies and waste of resources. While several measures and strategies have been suggested to address these issues, a thorough and timely summarisation is still lacking. Therefore, our aim is to conduct a scoping review to summarise the negative effects of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19 clinical trials, outline the effective measures for mitigating these impacts, and provide insights for future pandemics.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be conducted in line with the Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodological framework, and the results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Relevant articles will be searched in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 1 December 2019 to 1 July 2023. We will also screen the reference lists of the included studies manually to identify more potentially relevant articles. Articles focusing on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19 clinical trials and effective measures for mitigating them will be included. Two investigators will perform study selection and data extraction independently. A narrative summary as well as a descriptive analysis of the basic characteristics and key results of the included studies will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as this scoping review will be completed based only on published literature. The findings of this scoping review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and/or conference presentations.

The abstract should read: This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: (1) Which formal HBC services for people with dementia have been tested in an RCT? (2) How effective are the different formal HBC services in improving the physical and mental health outcomes of people with dementia? (3) What is the cost and patient's health service usage of different formal HBC services?

Purpose: To provide an overview of existing meta-analysis (MAs) on the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for depression, and assess the methodological quality and the strength of evidence of the included MAs. Methods: We searched MAs of randomized trials that have evaluated the effects of acupuncture on depression in three international and three Chinese databases from their inception until August 2019. The methodological quality of included MAs was evaluated with the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess reviewer agreement in the pre-experiment. Results: We included 31 MAs and 59 RCTs. The results of included MAs were conflicting, our meta-analyses found that acupuncture may confer small benefit in reducing the severity of depression by end of treatment than no treatment/wait list/treatment as usual(SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.41, eight trials, 624 participants), control acupuncture (invasive, non-invasive sham controls) (SMD 0.27, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.04, 20 trials, 1055 participants), antidepressants(Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)/Tetracyclic antidepressants(TCAs)) (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10, 30 trials, 3068 participants), acupuncture plus antidepressants versus antidepressants(SSRI/TCAs) (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.61, 17 trials, 1110 participants). Subgroup analyses showed that there was no difference between electro-acupuncture and invasive control (P = 0.37), electroacupuncture and non-invasive control (P = 0.90), manual acupuncture and Tetracyclic antidepressants (P = 0.57), electro-acupuncture and Tetracyclic antidepressants (P = 0.07). Six MAs concluded that acupuncture reduced the incidence of adverse events compared with antidepressants. The evaluation with AMSTAR-2 showed that the quality of included MAs was low or critically low. The results of the GRADE evaluation showed that the strength of evidence was low to very low for most outcomes. Conclusions: Although acupuncture appears to be more effective and safer than no treatment, control acupuncture and antidepressants, the quality of the available evidence was very low. Further methodologically rigorous and adequately powered primary studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of acupuncture for depression.