Background: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions promoting healthy lifestyle changes offer an adaptable and inexpensive method for accessing health information but require cultural appropriateness and suitability for acceptance and effectiveness in Indigenous populations. No systematic review on effective mHealth interventions for Indigenous women during pregnancy and the early childhood years has been conducted. Objective: This review evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth interventions promoting healthy behaviors for Indigenous mothers and children from conception to 5 years post partum. It also aimed to explore the observed effectiveness differences based on participant engagement, intervention design, and provision of context. Further, the review explored if the interventions were co-designed. Methods: A systematic search of 5 databases was conducted: SCOPUS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest (Dissertation or Thesis). Studies were included if they were either a randomized controlled trial, pre-post comparison, or a cohort study using mHealth with Indigenous women for maternal and child health following a preregistered PROSPERO protocol (CRD42023395710). HealthInfoNet was searched for gray literature and the reference lists of included studies were hand searched. The initial title and abstract screen for eligibility were performed by 1 reviewer. A full-text screen of eligible studies and a quality appraisal of included studies was performed by 2 reviewers independently. The appraisal tools used were the Mixed Methods Quality Appraisal Tool and the Centre of Excellence in Aboriginal Chronic Disease Knowledge Translation and Exchange (CREATE). A descriptive synthesis of the extracted data was performed. Results: Of the 663 articles screened, only 3 met the eligibility criteria. Each paper evaluated a different mHealth intervention: Remote Prenatal Education; the SMS Parent Action Intervention (two-way text messaging); and the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) eCHECKUP To Go (web-based screening and intervention). Statistically significant changes were reported in some outcomes, including an increase in the parental participation rate in face-to-face prenatal education; increased rate of breastfeeding initiation and exclusive breastfeeding (2-12 months); improved overall children's behavior related to sleep, diet, physical activity, screen time, and intake of sugary beverages; improved individual children's behavior related to physical activity and sleep; and decrease in alcohol drinks per week and binge drinking episodes per 2 weeks due to time effect. However, no study provided a sample size calculation for the reported significant outcomes. Also, due to the small number of included studies and each study evaluating a different intervention, it was not possible to combine results to ascertain if the participant engagement, intervention design, or community context had any impact on the effectiveness. Conclusions: Due to the lack of sample size calculation, it was not possible to establish whether differences in the effectiveness were due to the interventions or a type I statistical error. Therefore, caution is required in the interpretation of these findings. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42023395710; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023395710.

Objectives Increasingly, the credibility of online reviews is drawing critical attention due to the lack of control mechanisms, the constant debate about fake reviews and, last but not least, current developments in the field of artificial intelligence. For this reason, the aim of this study was to examine the extent to which assessments recorded on physician rating websites (PRWs) are credible, based on a comparison to other evaluation criteria. Methods Referring to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across different scientific databases. Data were synthesized by comparing individual statistical outcomes, objectives and conclusions. Results The chosen search strategy led to a database of 36,755 studies of which 28 were ultimately included in the systematic review. The literature review yielded mixed results regarding the credibility of PRWs. While seven publications supported the credibility of PRWs, six publications found no correlation between PRWs and alternative datasets. 15 studies reported mixed results. Conclusions This study has shown that ratings on PRWs seem to be credible when relying primarily on patients’ perception. However, these portals seem inadequate to represent alternative comparative values such as the medical quality of physicians. For health policy makers our results show that decisions based on patients’ perceptions may be well supported by data from PRWs. For all other decisions, however, PRWs do not seem to contain sufficiently useful data.

Objective: To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese- and English -language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018. Study design and setting: We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese- and English language SRs/MAs. Results: We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMA scores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs. 22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese- and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese -language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese- and English -language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese -language SRs/MAs.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to grow worldwide, and systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on COVID-19 can efficiently guide evidence-based clinical practice. However, SRs/MAs with weaknesses can mislead clinical practice and pose harm to patients, and too many useless SRs/MAs could pose confusion and waste sources. A "living" overview of SRs/MAs aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarizing the highest-level evidence of COVID-19, that can help evidence-users to quickly identify trusted evidence to guide the practice. This study aims to systematically give an overview SRs/MAs of COVID-19, assess their quality, and identify the best synthesis of evidence. Methods: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) and WanFang were systematically searched on May 1, 2020 using relevant terms for identify SRs/MAs related to COVID-19. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by independent reviewers, and results will be crosschecked. The authoritative tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA and its extensions) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs, and potential influence factors will be explored. The consistency of conclusions will be compared among reviews and the best evidence will be summarized. In addition, we will conduct exploratory meta-analyses (MAs) of individual studies when applicable. Data will be reported as number with (or) percentage, risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the specific results. R3.6.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 will be used to analyze and manage data. Results: The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Conclusions: In this study, we will present for the first time, an overview of SRs/MAs, which provides a comprehensive, dynamic evidence landscape on prevalence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19.

Background Acupuncture is widely used worldwide, and systematic reviews on acupuncture are increasingly being published. Although acupuncture systematic reviews share several essential elements with other systematic reviews, some essential information for the application of acupuncture is not covered by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Considering this, we aimed to develop an extension of the PRISMA statement for acupuncture systematic reviews. Methods We used the PRISMA statement as a starting point, and conducted this study referring to the development strategy recommended by the EQUATOR network. The initial items were collected through a wide survey among evidence users and a review of relevant studies. We conducted a three-round Delphi survey and one-day face-to-face meeting to select items and formulate the checklist. After the consensus meeting, we drafted the manuscript (including the checklist) and sent it to our advisory experts for comments, following which the checklist was refined and circulated to a group of acupuncture systematic review authors for pilot test. We also selected a sample of acupuncture systematic reviews published in 2017 to test the checklist. Results A checklist of five new sub-items (including sub items) and six modified items was formulated, involving content related to title, rationale, eligibility criteria, literature search, data extraction, and study characteristics. We clarified the rationales of the items and provided examples for each item for additional guidance. Conclusion The PRISMA for Acupuncture checklist is developed for improving the reporting of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions.

Background: Providing efficient and effective aged care services is one of the greatest public policy concerns currently facing governments. Increasing the integration of care services has the potential to provide many benefits including increased access, promoting greater efficiency, and improving care outcomes. There is little research, however, investigating how integrated aged care can be successfully achieved. The PRISMA (Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy) project, from Quebec, Canada, is one of the most systematic and sustained bodies of research investigating the translation and outcomes of an integrated care policy into practice. The PRISMA research program has run since 1988, yet there has been no independent systematic review of this work to draw out the lessons learnt. Methods: Narrative review of all literature emanating from the PRISMA project between 1988 and 2012. Researchers accessed an online list of all published papers from the program website. The reference lists of papers were hand searched to identify additional literature. Finally, Medline, Pubmed, EMBASE and Google Scholar indexing databases were searched using key terms and author names. Results were extracted into specially designed spread sheets for analysis. Results: Forty-five journal articles and two books authored or co-authored by the PRISMA team were identified. Research was primarily concerned with: the design, development and validation of screening and assessment tools; and results generated from their application. Both quasi-experimental and cross sectional analytic designs were used extensively. Contextually appropriate expert opinion was obtained using variations on the Delphi Method. Literature analysis revealed the structures, processes and outcomes which underpinned the implementation. PRISMA provides evidence that integrating care for older persons is beneficial to individuals through reducing incidence of functional decline and handicap levels, and improving feelings of empowerment and satisfaction with care provided. The research also demonstrated benefits to the health system, including a more appropriate use of emergency rooms, and decreased consultations with medical specialists. Discussion: Reviewing the body of research reveals the importance of both designing programs with an eye to local context, and building in flexibility allowing the program to be adapted to changing circumstances. Creating partnerships between policy designers, project implementers, and academic teams is an important element in achieving these goals. Partnerships are also valuable for achieving effective monitoring and evaluation, and support to 'evidence-based' policy-making processes. Despite a shared electronic health record being a key component of the service model, there was an under-investigation of the impact this technology on facilitating and enabling integration and the outcomes achieved. Conclusions: PRISMA provides evidence of the benefits that can arise from integrating care for older persons, particularly in terms of increased feelings of personal empowerment, and improved client satisfaction with the care provided. Taken alongside other integrated care experiments, PRISMA provides further evidentiary support to policy-makers pursuing integrated care programs. The scale and scope of the research body highlights the long-term and complex nature of program evaluations, but underscores the benefits of evaluation, review and subsequent adaptation of programs. The role of information technology in supporting integration of services is likely to substantially expand in the future and the potential this technology offers should be investigated and harnessed.

Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHM) are the most common interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. Systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHM treatments accurately and reliably. Unfortunately, the reporting quality of SRs with CHM is not optimal, especially the reporting of CHM interventions and the rationale of why these interventions were selected. To address this problem, a group of TCM clinical experts, methodologists, epidemiologists, and editors has developed a PRISMA extension for CHM interventions (PRISMA-CHM) through a comprehensive process, including registration, literature review, consensus meeting, three-round Delphi survey, and finalization. The PRISMA checklist was extended by introducing the concept of TCM Pattern and the characteristics of CHM interventions. A total of twenty-four items (including sub-items) are included in the checklist, relating to title (1), structured summary (2), rationale (3), objectives (4), eligibility criteria (6), data items (11), synthesis of results (14, 21), additional analyses (16, 23), study characteristics (18), summary of evidence (24), and conclusions (26). Illustrative examples and explanations are also provided. The group hopes that PRISMA-CHM 2020 will improve the reporting quality of SRs of CHM.