OBJECTIVE: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the knowledge structure and research hotspots regarding barriers and strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Publications on barriers and strategies for guideline implementation were searched for on Web of Science Core Collection from database inception to October 24, 2022. R package bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 21,768 records from 3,975 journals by 99,998 authors from 3,964 institutions in 186 countries between 1983 and 2022. The number of published papers had a roughly increasing trend annually. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada contributed the majority of records. The University of Toronto, the University of Washington, and the University of Sydney were the biggest node in their cluster on the collaboration network map. The three journals that published the greatest number of relevant studies were Implementation Science, BMJ Open, and BMC Health Services Research. Grimshaw JM was the author with the most published articles, and was the second most co-cited author. Research hotspots in this field focused on public health and education, evidence-based medicine and quality promotion, diagnosis and treatment, and knowledge translation and barriers. Challenges and barriers, as well as societal impacts and inequalities, are likely to be key directions for future research. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first bibliometric study to comprehensively summarize the research trends of research on barriers and strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation. A better understanding of collaboration patterns and research hotspots may be useful for researchers. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A247.

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.

ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with the use of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for the treatment of chronic constipation in adults.MethodsWe searched eight electronic databases from database inception to July 11, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the treatment of chronic constipation. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. The analysis was conducted using R version 4.3.0.ResultsOut of the 37 RCTs, a total of 21 different types of interventions were reported, involving 3,903 patients. This NMA demonstrated that both prebiotics and synbiotics resulted in an increase in frequency of stool movements per week. Compared to placebo, lactulose (Mean difference [MD] = 3.39, 95% Confdence interval [CI] [1.13, 5.65], moderate certainty), mix2 (consisting of Lactulose and Bacillus coagulans) (MD = 3.63, 95% CI [1.37, 5.89], moderate certainty), mix6 (consisting of Lactulose and Bifidobacterium coagulans) (MD = 4.30, 95% CI [1.04, 7.54], low certainty), and mix7 (consisting of Lactulose, Bifidobacterium subtilis, and Enterococcus faecium) (MD = 4.58, 95% CI [1.35, 7.78], moderate certainty) exhibited a significant effect. Notably, mix7 demonstrated the highest probability of being the most effective intervention (94.8%). Furthermore, when compared to L. plantarum, four probiotics and two synbiotics showed significant advantages in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) score. L. reuteri (MD = -13.74, 95% CI [-22.20, -4.66], very low certainty) exhibited a significant effect in improving the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QoL) score. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups in all adverse event analyses.ConclusionsModerate to very low evidence supports the use of lactulose and synbiotics to increase the number of weekly stool movements in patients, particularly highlighting the significant impact of synbiotics in increasing the number of weekly stool movements in patients with constipation. The use of L. paracasei showed improvements in PAC-SYM scores, while L. reuteri demonstrated enhancements in PAC-QoL scores.

Aim Although Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) potentially holds efficacy in addressing functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) amongst children and adolescents, the persistent efficacy is uncertain. Methods We searched three databases to identify related randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan and Stata. Subgroup analyses were mainly conducted based on follow-up time. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Results A total of 14 RCTs evaluating 858 patients were included. All RCTs were rated as having a high risk of bias. Compared with control groups, CBT was associated with improvement of general functional impairment (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.12, −0.42], p < 0.05), higher treatment success (relative risk (RR) = 2.35, 95% CI [1.50, 3.69], p < 0.05), improvement of abdominal pain symptoms (SMD = −0.48, 95% CI [-0.73, −0.23], p < 0.05), QoL (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI [0.20, 0.64], p < 0.05), and psychological states (SMD = −0.95, 95% CI [-1.62, −0.27], p < 0.05). Conclusion This meta-analysis provides low to moderate quality evidence that CBT could significantly improve clinical outcomes and QoL for children and adolescents with FAPDs with improvement persisting until short-term follow-up. However, there were discrepancies regarding CBT's effects at mid- and long-term follow-up across different outcomes. More high-quality and longer-duration studies are thus warranted to explore the effectiveness of CBT in the future. Systematic review registration on prospero CRD42022369353.

Background: Sedentary time in workplaces has been linked to increased risks of chronic occupational diseases, obesity, and overall mortality. Currently, there is a burgeoning research interest in the implementation of multicomponent interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary time among office workers, which encompass a comprehensive amalgamation of individual, organizational, and environmental strategies. Objective: This meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions to mitigate occupational sedentary behavior at work compared with no intervention. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until March 2023 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of multicomponent interventions on occupational sedentary behavior among office-based workers. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The average intervention effect on sedentary time was calculated using Stata 15.1. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used to calculate the continuous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether sit-stand workstation, feedback, and prompt elements played an important role in multicomponent interventions. Further, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 11 RCTs involving 1894 patients were included in the analysis. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias, 2 as unclear risk of bias, and 4 as high risk. The meta-analysis results showed that compared with no intervention, multicomponent interventions significantly reduced occupational sitting time (MD=-52.25 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.06 to -31.44; P<.001) and occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-32.63 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -51.93 to -13.33; P=.001) and increased occupational standing time (MD=44.30 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 23.11-65.48; P<.001), whereas no significant differences were found in occupational stepping time (P=.06). The results of subgroup analysis showed that compared with multicomponent interventions without installment of sit-stand workstations, multicomponent interventions with sit-stand workstation installment showed better effects for reducing occupational sitting time (MD=-71.95 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -92.94 to -51.15), increasing occupational standing time (MD=66.56 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 43.45-89.67), and reducing occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-47.05 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.66 to -20.43). The GRADE evidence summary showed that all 4 outcomes were rated as moderate certainty. Conclusions: Multicomponent interventions, particularly those incorporating sit-stand workstations for all participants, are effective at reducing workplace sedentary time. However, given their cost, further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of low-cost/no-cost multicomponent interventions.

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).

Objectives: Recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for individuals with type 2 dia-betes mellitus (T2DM) may be inconsistent, and little is known about their quality. Our aim in this study was to systematically review the consistency of globally available CPGs containing nutritional recom-mendations for T2DM and to assess the quality of their methodology and reporting. Methods: PubMed, China Biology Medicine and 4 main guideline websites were searched. Four researchers independently assessed quality of the methodology and reporting using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, second edition (AGREE II) instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist.Results: Fifteen CPGs include 65 nutritional recommendations with 6 sections: 1) body weight and energy balance; 2) dietary eating patterns; 3) macronutrients; 4) micronutrients and supplements; 5) alcohol; and 6) specific, functional foods. Current nutritional recommendations for individuals with T2DM on specific elements and amounts are not completely consistent in different CPGs and fail to assign the specific supporting evidence and strength of recommendations. To use nutritional recommendations to guide and manage individuals with T2DM, it is important to address the current challenges by establishing a solid evidence base and indicating the strength of recommendations. Overall, 8 CPGs classified as recommended for clinical practice used AGREE II. Fifteen CPGs adhere to <60% of RIGHT checklist items.Conclusions: High-quality evidence is needed to potentially close knowledge gaps and strengthen the recommendation. The AGREE II instrument, along with the RIGHT checklist, should be endorsed and used by CPG developers to ensure higher quality and adequate use of their products.(c) 2022 Canadian Diabetes Association.

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: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases " has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management.Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, , gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management.Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias " and five SRs as "high quality. " Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events; 39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups.Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.

Introduction: Despite common, serious, costly, and often fatal conditions affecting up to 50 % of older patients, delirium is often unrecognized and overlooked. We examine the accuracy of the 4AT for detecting older patients with delirium.Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 and updated to January 2022. Four independently reviewers extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using a bivariate random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 15.1 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software. Results: Eleven studies with 2789 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.66 (95 % CI: 4.12-10.74) and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively. Deeks' test indicated no significant publication bias (t = 0.83, P = 0.43). Univariable meta-regression showed that patient selection and flow and timing significantly influenced the pooled sensitivity (P < 0.05), settings significantly influenced the pooled specificity (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that 4AT is a sensitive and specific screening tool for delirium in older patients. Its brevity and simplicity support its use in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-poor settings. Clinicians should come to a conclusion based largely on the 4AT findings in conjunction with clinical judgment.

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.

Objectives: To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.Study Design and Setting: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two re-viewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.Results: Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items. Conclusion: Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background Most women suffer from perineal trauma during childbirth, whether it is natural tears or episiotomy. Objectives To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of different PFMT relevant strategies in the prevention of perineal trauma. Search strategy PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG DATABASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 1 July 2021. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PFMT relevant prevention strategies for preventing perineal trauma during childbirth. Data collection and analysis Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Relative treatment effects were estimated using network meta-analysis (NMA). Main results Of 12 632 citations searched, 21 RCTs were included. Comparing with usual care, "PFMT combine with perineal massage" and PFMT alone showed more superiority in intact perineum (RR = 5.37, 95% CI: 3.79 to 7.60, moderate certainty; RR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.34-4.97, moderate certainty, respectively), episiotomy (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.49, very low certainty; RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.90, very low certainty, respectively), and OASIS (RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.78, moderate certainty; RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85, high certainty, respectively). "PFMT combine with perineal massage" showed superiority in reducing perineal tear (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.85, moderate certainty). Conclusions In view of the results, antenatal "PFMT combine with perineal massage" and PFMT were effective strategies for the prevention of perineal trauma.

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a serious pregnancy complication that affects approximately 1% of pregnancies worldwide. Objective: To determine whether the use of ondansetron during pregnancy is associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Search strategy: PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG, and were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 15 December 2021. Selection criteria: Eligible studies included any observational study. Data collection and analysis: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as indicators to examine the association between ondansetron and abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Main results: Twenty articles from 1,558 citations were included. Our preliminary analysis showed that compared with the unexposed group, the use of ondansetron during pregnancy may be associated with an increased incidence of cardiac defects (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10), neural tube defects (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.18), and chest cleft (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.37). Further sensitivity analysis showed no significant association between ondansetron and cardiac defects (OR = 1.15,95% CI: 0.94-1.40) or neural tube defects (OR = 0.87,95% CI: 0.46-1.66). When controversial studies were eliminated, the results for the chest defects disappeared. Simultaneously, we found that the use of ondansetron was associated with a reduced incidence of miscarriage (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.89). Ondansetron was not associated with orofacial clefts (OR = 1.09,95% CI: 0.95-1.25), spinal limb defects (OR = 1.14,95% CI: 0.89-1.46), urinary tract deformities (OR = 1.06,95% CI: 0.97-1.15), any congenital malformations (OR = 1.03,95% CI: 0.98-1.09), stillbirth (OR = 0.97,95% CI: 0.83-1.15), preterm birth (OR = 1.22,95% CI: 0.80-1.85), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 1.05,95% CI: 0.72-1.54), or neonatal development (OR = 1.18,95% CI: 0.96-1.44) in our primary analysis. Conclusion: In our analysis, using ondansetron during pregnancy was not associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Although our study did not find sufficient evidence of ondansetron and adverse pregnancy outcomes, future studies including the exposure period and dose of ondansetron, as well as controlling for disease status, may be useful to truly elucidate the potential risks and benefits of ondansetron.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the most effective delivery format of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on insomnia in cancer patients. Methods: We searched five databases up to February 2021 for randomized clinical trials that compared CBT-I with inactive or active controls for insomnia in cancer patients. Outcomes were insomnia severity, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and total sleep time (TST). Pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model were applied for data analyses. Results: Sixteen unique trials including 1523 participants met inclusion criteria. Compared with inactive control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (mean differences [MD] = -4.98 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.82 to -4.14), SOL (MD = -12.29 min, 95%CI: -16.48 to -8.09), and WASO (MD = -16.58 min, 95%CI: -22.00 to -11.15), while increasing sleep efficiency (MD = 7.62%, 95%CI: 5.82% to 9.41%) at postintervention. Compared with active control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (MD = -2.75 points, 95%CI: -4.28 to -1.21), SOL (MD = -13.56 min, 95%CI: -18.93 to -8.18), and WASO (MD = -6.99 min, 95%CI: -11.65 to -2.32) at postintervention. These effects diminished in short-term follow-up and almost disappeared in long-term follow-up. Most of the results were rated as "moderate" to "low" certainty of evidence. Network meta-analysis showed that group CBT-I had an increase in sleep efficiency of 10.61%, an increase in TST of 21.98 min, a reduction in SOL of 14.65 min, and a reduction in WASO of 24.30 min, compared with inactive control at postintervention, with effects sustained at short-term follow-up. Conclusions: CBT-I is effective for the management of insomnia in cancer patients postintervention, with diminished effects in short-term follow-up. Group CBT-I is the preferred choice based on postintervention and short-term effects. The low quality of evidence and limited sample size demonstrate the need for robust evidence from high-quality, large-scale trials providing long-term follow-up data.

This review compared the efficacy and acceptability of different delivery formats for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in insomnia. We searched five databases for randomized clinical trials that compared one CBT-I delivery format against another format or control conditions for insomnia in adults. We used pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model to synthesize data. A total of 61 unique trials including 11,571 participants compared six CBT-I delivery formats with four control conditions. At post-intervention, with low to high certainty evidence, individual, group, guided self-help, digital assisted, and unguided self-help CBT-I could significantly increase sleep efficiency and total sleep time (TST) and reduce sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and insomnia severity compared with treatment as usual (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.81%-12.45%; MD range for TST: 16.14-33.96 min; MD range for SOL:-22.42 to-13.81 min; MD range for WASO:-40.84 to-19.48 min; MD range for insomnia severity:-6.40 to-3.93) and waitlist (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.68%-12.32%; MD range for TST: 12.67-30.49 min; MD range for SOL:-19.07 to-10.46 min; MD range for WASO:-47.10 to-19.15 min; MD range for insomnia severity:-7.59 to-5.07). The effects of different CBT-I formats per-sisted at short-term follow-up (4 wk-6 mo). Individual, group, and digital assisted CBT-I delivery formats would be the more appropriate choices for insomnia in adults, based on post-intervention and short-term effects. Further trials are needed to investigate the long-term effects of different CBT-I formats. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Acupuncture has been widely practiced for primary insomnia (PI). However, the relative benefit and harm among acupuncture therapies remain uncertain.Objectives: To compare and evaluate the effect differences of multiple acupuncture therapies for patients with PI.Methods: Systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using R and Stata software. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence and interpret results.Results: Fifty-seven RCTs with 4678 patients were included. Compared with usual treatment, multiple acupuncture therapies showed a better effect for Pittsburgh sleep quality index score. And acupoints catgut embedding (ACE) was proved to be the most effective with a moderate certainty of evidence; auricular acupressure or auricular acupuncture plus manual acupuncture (AP + MA), electroacupuncture plus acupoint application (EA + APA), and intradermal needle (IN) might be also the most effective with low certainty of evidence. ACE, ACE + MA, AP + MA, EA, EA + APA, HPN, MA and PBN + MA showed significantly improvement in effective rate when compared with usual treatment. Insufficient evidence reported on Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Athens Insomnia Scale, and recurrence rate. The most common slight adverse events mainly included hematoma, pain, headache, and bleeding.Conclusions: With moderate to low certainty of evidence, multiple acupuncture therapies showed impressive insomnia improvement, especially ACE, AP + MA, and EA + APA. Differences between therapies were small or insignificant and based-on low or very low certainty of evidence.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the duration of breastfeeding on the intelligence of children. Materials and Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched to identify studies that investigated the impact of breastfeeding on the intelligence of children. Data were pooled, and the ratio of means (RoM) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using a pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using a tool developed by the CLARITY group. Data were analyzed using R version 3.5.1. Results: A total of 16 studies with 9,162 subjects were included in the review. Half of the studies were at low risk of bias. A meta-analysis indicated that breastfed children had a score 1.04-fold higher in intelligence tests compared with those that had never been breastfed (RoM: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06, p 6 months had a score 1.06-fold higher (RoM: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.08, p 6 months demonstrated a slightly higher score than breastfeeding for 6 months showing a slight but significantly higher intelligence score than for <= 6 months.

Objectives: To compare different modalities of renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults with acute kidney injury. Data sources: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 25 May, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different renal replacement therapy modalities in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Study selection: Ten reviewers (working in pairs) independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data extraction: We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. The primary analysis was a four-node analysis: continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. The secondary analysis subdivided these four nodes into nine nodes including continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodiafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis with hemofiltration, slow efficiency extended dialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration, and peritoneal dialysis. We set the minimal important difference threshold for mortality as 2.5% (relative difference, 0.04). Data synthesis: Thirty randomized controlled trials (n = 3,774 patients) proved eligible. There may be no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18; low certainty), whereas continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated a possible increase in mortality compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; low certainty) and peritoneal dialysis (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.49; low certainty). Continuous renal replacement therapy may increase renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.45; low certainty), whereas both continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis may be worse for renal recovery compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis and peritoneal dialysis (low certainty). Peritoneal dialysis was probably associated with the shortest duration of renal support and length of ICU stay compared with other interventions (low certainty for most comparisons). Slow efficiency extended dialysis may be associated with shortest length of hospital stay (low or moderate certainty for all comparisons) and days of mechanical ventilation (low certainty for all comparisons) compared with other interventions. There was no difference between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in terms of hypotension (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.16; moderate certainty) or other complications of therapy, but an increased risk of hypotension and bleeding was seen with both modalities compared with peritoneal dialysis (low or moderate certainty). Complications of slow efficiency extended dialysis were not sufficiently reported to inform comparisons. Conclusions: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest there is no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis although continuous renal replacement therapy may increases renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis. Slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration may be the most effective intervention at reducing mortality. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with good efficacy, and the least number of complications however may not be practical in all settings. Importantly, all conclusions are based on very low to moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision. At the very least, ICU clinicians should feel comfortable that the differences between continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and, where clinically appropriate, peritoneal dialysis are likely small, and any of these modalities is a reasonable option to employ in critically ill patients.

Objectives: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. Study Design and Setting: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results: In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%). Conclusion: This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.