Introduction: There is no recent consensus on the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination in the diagnosis of dental caries, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis (PROSPERO #CRD42023410962). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis. The eligibility criteria were peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 that reported diagnostic parameters (specificity and sensitivity) for caries detection in primary and permanent dentition. Articles were extracted using search strategies from PubMed and CINAHL databases and screened using PRISMA-DTA guidelines, following a review for quality assessment and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. Meta-analysis was conducted in R using the MADA package. A descriptive analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and confidence intervals was performed with respective forest plots. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane and Higgins's 2 tests. Univariate measures of diagnostic accuracy were performed based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect and reported summary diagnostic odds ratios. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic parameters ranged from 45.6% to 88.3% for sensitivity, 55.2% to 98.3% for specificity, 79% to 92% for positive predictive value, 48% to 97% for negative predictive value, and 70% to 96% for accuracy. The κ scores ranged from 0.46 to 0.89 for teledentistry modalities. Tests for equality of sensitivities and specificities were significant ( < 0.001). The studies were not heterogeneous with Cochran's : 14.502 ( = 0.206) and Higgins's 2 of 24%. The multivariable analysis showed a diagnostic odds ratio based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect of 35.14, which indicates that the odds of caries detection via teledentistry is 35 times more true positive (i.e., correctly identifying a positive condition) than false positive. Conclusions: Diagnosis of caries via teledentistry is effective and comparable to in-person diagnosis. Remote assessments are consistent in diagnostic accuracy for caries.Knowledge Transfer Statement:This systematic review and meta-analysis added to the evidence about using teledentistry assessment as a diagnostically accurate tool to detect dental caries. Using teledentistry dental practices could promote greater access to dental and oral health care in the absence of in-person assessment.

Introduction: There is no recent consensus on the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination in the diagnosis of dental caries, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis (PROSPERO #CRD42023410962). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis. The eligibility criteria were peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 that reported diagnostic parameters (specificity and sensitivity) for caries detection in primary and permanent dentition. Articles were extracted using search strategies from PubMed and CINAHL databases and screened using PRISMA-DTA guidelines, following a review for quality assessment and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. Meta-analysis was conducted in R using the MADA package. A descriptive analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and confidence intervals was performed with respective forest plots. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q and Higgins's I(2 )tests. Univariate measures of diagnostic accuracy were performed based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect and reported summary diagnostic odds ratios. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic parameters ranged from 45.6% to 88.3% for sensitivity, 55.2% to 98.3% for specificity, 79% to 92% for positive predictive value, 48% to 97% for negative predictive value, and 70% to 96% for accuracy. The kappa scores ranged from 0.46 to 0.89 for teledentistry modalities. Tests for equality of sensitivities and specificities were significant (P < 0.001). The studies were not heterogeneous with Cochran's Q: 14.502 (P = 0.206) and Higgins's I-2 of 24%. The multivariable analysis showed a diagnostic odds ratio based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect of 35.14, which indicates that the odds of caries detection via teledentistry is 35 times more true positive (i.e., correctly identifying a positive condition) than false positive. Conclusions: Diagnosis of caries via teledentistry is effective and comparable to in-person diagnosis. Remote assessments are consistent in diagnostic accuracy for caries. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This systematic review and meta-analysis added to the evidence about using teledentistry assessment as a diagnostically accurate tool to detect dental caries. Using teledentistry dental practices could promote greater access to dental and oral health care in the absence of in-person assessment.

Several systematic reviews support nature-based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. This can only limit the development of interventions to support personal and planetary wellbeing, potentially resulting in ineffective and ill-targeted investment decisions. These concerns have hindered the translation of research evidence into practice and guidelines are urgently required to assist researchers, practitioners and policymakers in developing interventions to promote environmental stewardship and meet the health needs of diverse communities. A higher-order or meta-level synthesis is required to make sense of this evidence. This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the barriers and enablers to nature-based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Centre and Google Scholar was performed. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis were included. 64 systematic reviews were included in the synthesis. The descriptive data, extracted from each study, forms an overview of the characteristics of available evidence on nature-based interventions. A narrative synthesis is used to present the potential factors influencing the outcomes of NBIs. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews was assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Directions for future research, potential quality needs and recommendations for future research, policymaking, and practice are discusssed.

Background: The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) plays a pivotal role in safeguarding public health through robust pharmacovigilance. Since establishing its signal detection in 2015, SFDA has implemented a comprehensive framework to monitor and evaluate drug safety through proactive data collection, advanced analytical methods, and international collaborations. Objective: To provide a comprehensive analysis of the current practices in signal detection at SFDA, assess the effectiveness of its regulatory framework, in-house priority system, active surveillance programme, and global collaborations, and to offer recommendations for future enhancements in pharmacovigilance. Methods: A scientific review was conducted using publicly available literature, official SFDA guidelines, and internal reports. The evaluation focused on the regulatory mandate, data collection methodologies, signal generation processes (including weekly scanning of diverse sources), case validation, and the integration of advanced statistical techniques. Special emphasis was given to the in-house priority algorithm, active surveillance initiatives, and collaborative efforts with international bodies. Results: The review highlights that SFDA's robust regulatory framework and innovative in-house priority algorithm have enhanced the efficiency of signal detection. The active surveillance programme has significantly increased the capacity for real-time monitoring, while global collaborations have facilitated knowledge exchange and harmonised methodologies. However, challenges persist regarding data quality, resource allocation, and the need for continuous training and improved communication among stakeholders. Conclusion: SFDA's signal detection system effectively contributes to drug safety in Saudi Arabia by combining rigorous regulatory practices with innovative analytical methods and international cooperation. Addressing current challenges through advanced technologies, enhanced resource allocation, and strengthened stakeholder communication is recommended to further improve pharmacovigilance practices and ensure public health protection.

Objective: Acupuncture overviews are increasing rapidly; however, their reporting quality is yet unclear. We aimed to investigate the reporting quality of relevant overviews according to the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed from inception to August 16, 2022 for overviews on acupuncture therapies. Reporting quality of included overviews was evaluated using the PRIOR statement, and the results were cross-checked. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of the reporting completeness. GraphPad 9.4 was utilized to generate an evidence map, Excel 2019 was used to extract and manage data, and R 4.2.3 was used for data analysis. Results: A total of 49 overviews published from 2006 to 2022 were included, of which China ranked first with 38 overviews. The most frequently searched database was PubMed/ Medline (n = 48, 98%), and commonly used methodological quality assessment tool was AMSTAR-2 (n = 14, 29%). The overarching themes centered on acupuncture for obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive diseases, as well as depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Reporting quality needs to be improved involving the definition of systematic reviews (SRs), overlap of primary studies and SRs, methods for managing discrepant data across SRs, risk of bias in primary studies, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis of synthesized results, reporting bias assessment, and registration and protocol. Moreover, publication in recent years and receiving funding support were significantly associated with higher overall reporting quality score (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Based on the PRIOR statement, this methodological study indicates that the reporting quality of the included acupuncture overviews is poor. In the future, authors of overviews are encouraged to use the PRIOR statement for standardized reporting. Furthermore, it is recommended that journal editors mandate the inclusion of this statement in authors' reports and require a complete PRIOR checklist.

BACKGROUND Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the association between ultra -processed foods (UPFs) and the risk of hypertension in various populations. However, the quality of the evidence remains unclear. This umbrella review was thus conducted to fill this gap. METHODS We searched for SRs with and without meta -analyses comparing high UPF versus low UPF consumption on the risk of hypertension in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to August 2022. This study was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022352934). The A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR -2) tool and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta -analysis 2009 (PRISMA 2009) statement were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs. Stata 15/SE was used to reanalyse the data using the random -effects model, and the risk of bias of observational studies from included SRs was reassessed using the Newcastle -Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. The certainty of the evidence body was assessed using the GRADE recommendation. RESULTS Seven SRs were included in the umbrella review. Among them, nine observational studies (5 cross-sectional and 4 cohort studies), whose available data were resynthesised using meta -analysis. The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were relatively poor. The meta -analysis results revealed suggestive evidence of an association between high UPF consumption and the incidence of hypertension (odds ratio: 1.23, 95% con fidence interval: 1.11 to 1.37, p < 0.001, 95% prediction interval: 0.92 to 1.64, critically low certainty) compared to low UPF consumption. CONCLUSION High UPF consumption is associated with an increased risk of hypertension. However, well-conducted SRs, including high -quality prospective cohort studies, are needed to further verify these findings.

Objectives: Systematic reviews (SRs) are becoming essential evidence in the decision-making process within the field of social sci-ences. This study aimed to investigate how Campbell SRs were cited and explore their specific application roles.Study Design and Setting: We included Campbell SRs published between 2016 and 2020 by searching the Wiley online library, and retrieved the articles and documents citing Campbell SRs from the Web of Science and Google Scholar by December 31, 2021. We described the characteristics of the SRs and citations, and formulated a set of application roles by analyzing the sentences or paragraphs where the SRs were cited.Results: Sixty nine Campbell SRs were published between 2016 and 2020; they were cited in 641 articles or documents a total of 1,289 times. The primary types of articles that cited Campbell SRs were cross-sectional studies (n = 226, 35.3%), SRs (n = 112, 17.5%), ran-domized controlled trials (n = 77, 12.0%), and policy reports (n = 57, 8.8%). Articles utilizing Campbell SRs were predominantly led by authors from the United States (n = 184, 28.7%), the United Kingdom (n = 98, 15.3%), and Australia (n = 51, 8.0%). We formulated a set of 10 application roles for the Campbell SRs, of which the most frequent were: describing the current status in the field of interest (n = 691, 53.6%), corroboration of the results (n = 140, 10.9%), identifying research gaps (n = 130, 10.1%), and providing methodological refer-ences (n = 126, 9.8%); the role of supporting policy recommendations or decisions accounted for 6.0% (n = 77) of the citations. Approx-imately 12% of Campbell SRs were used to support policy recommendations or decisions.Conclusion: Campbell SRs are widely applied, particularly in scientific research, to describe the current status in the field of interest. Although the current application of Campbell SRs in supporting policy recommendations and decisions may not be predominant, there is a growing recognition of their value in using Campbell SRs to inform decision-making.(c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Background: Meta-analyses (MAs) provide up-to-date, quantified evidence on treatment effects, which may be useful for clinical and policy decision-making. However, the quality of MAs varies, and methodological flaws can limit their reliability. Aims: This review evaluated the methodological quality of MAs on sleep disorder treatments. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for eligible MAs on randomized controlled trials of sleep disorder treatments published between 2018 and 2023. We extracted MAs' bibliographical characteristics with a predesigned form and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) 2. We explored the associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. Results/outcomes: Among the 104 MAs, the majority (n = 82; 78.9%) had critically low quality, 19 (18.3%) had low quality, and only 3 (2.9%) had high quality. Regarding AMSTAR 2 critical domains, 97 (93.3%) MAs did not provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions, 75 (72.1%) did not use a comprehensive literature search strategy, and 56 (53.9%) lacked a registered protocol and did not justify protocol deviations. Cochrane reviews (p = 0.018), MAs with European corresponding authors (p < 0.001), and MAs receiving European funding (p < 0.001) performed better than their counterparts. Conclusions/interpretation: The methodological quality of recent MAs on sleep disorder treatments is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should address the identified critical methodological issues. In addition, substantial resources and funding should be allocated to support training in evidence synthesis and critical appraisal for researchers and clinicians.

Objective: An overview, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation. Methods: Systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials evaluating varenicline versus placebo for smoking cessation were included. A forest plot was used to summarize the effect size of the included SRs. Traditional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed using Stata software and TSA 0.9 software, respectively. Finally, the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of evidence for the abstinence effect. Results: A total of 13 SRs and 46 randomized controlled trials were included. Twelve review studies showed that varenicline was superior to placebo for smoking cessation. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared with the placebo, varenicline significantly increased the odds of smoking cessation (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval = 2.20-2.94, P < 0.05, moderate quality). Subgroup analysis showed that there were significant differences in smokers with disease and general smokers (P < 0.05). Differences were also found in the follow-up time at 12, 24, and 52 weeks (P < 0.05). The common adverse events were nausea, vomit, abnormal dreams, sleep disturbances, headache, depression, irritability, indigestion, and nasopharyngitis (P < 0.05). The TSA results confirmed the evidence for the effect of varenicline on smoking cessation. Conclusions: Existing evidence supports the superiority of varenicline over a placebo for smoking cessation. Varenicline had mild to moderate adverse events but was well tolerated. Future trials should investigate varenicline in combination with other smoking cessation approaches and compare it with other interventions.

Background: Although non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size. Results: A total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating. Conclusions: The abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

BackgroundActive workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD = - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD = - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.ConclusionsMulticomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.

Background There are debates in acupuncture related systematic reviews and meta-analyses on whether searching Chinese databases to get more Chinese-language studies may increase the risk of bias and overestimate the effect size, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differ between Chinese and non-Chinese populations.Methods In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Cochrane library from its inception until December 2021, and identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses with acupuncture as one of the interventions. Paired reviewers independently screened the reviews and extracted the information. We repeated the meta-analysis of the selected outcomes to separately pool the results of Chinese- and non-Chinese-language acupuncture studies and presented the pooled estimates as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the Ratio of ORs (ROR) by dividing the OR of the Chinese-language trials by the OR of the non-Chinese-language trials, and the ROR by dividing the OR of trials addressing Chinese population by the OR of trials addressing non-Chinese population. We explored whether the impact of a high risk of bias on the effect size differed between studies published in Chinese- and in non-Chinese-language, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differed between Chinese and non-Chinese population.Results We identified 84 Cochrane acupuncture reviews involving 33 Cochrane groups, of which 31 reviews (37%) searched Chinese databases. Searching versus not searching Chinese databases significantly increased the contribution of Chinese-language literature both to the total number of included trials (54% vs. 15%) and the sample size (40% vs. 15%). When compared with non-Chinese-language trials, Chinese-language trials were associated with a larger effect size (pooled ROR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91). We also observed a higher risk of bias in Chinese-language trials in blinding of participants and personnel (97% vs. 51%) and blinding of outcome assessment (93% vs. 47%). The higher risk of bias was associated with a larger effect estimate in both Chinese-language (allocation concealment: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87) and non-Chinese-language studies (blinding of participants and personnel: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). However, we found no evidence that the higher risk of bias would increase the effect size of acupuncture in Chinese-language studies more often than in non-Chinese-language studies (the confidence intervals of all ROR in the high-risk group included 1, Table 3). We further found acupuncture appeared to be more effective in Chinese than in non-Chinese population (Table 4).Conclusions The findings of this study suggest the higher risk of bias may lead to an overestimation of the treatment effects of acupuncture but would not increase the treatment effects in Chinese-language studies more often than in other language studies. The difference in treatment effects of acupuncture was probably associated with differences in population characteristics.

Background and Objectives: To evaluate and map the reporting and methodological quality of network meta-analysis (NMA) on acupuncture.Methods: Published acupuncture NMAs were searched through eight databases from inception to February 2022. The reporting and methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist.Results: A total of 113 NMAs were identified. Most (99, 87.61%) studies were performed in China. Most studies focused on multiple acupuncture techniques (82.30%), and the main studied ailments were pain and poststroke sequelae (20.24%). The median (interquartile range (IQR)) score of the reporting quality was 26.5 (25-28.5). However, poor reporting rates in the protocol and registration (33.63%) and geometry of the network (35.40%), especially for China-based studies, were identified. The methodological quality of only 2 (1.77%) English studies was high. The reporting rate of Chinese studies was below 15% on each of items 4, 7, 10, and 12.Conclusion: The reporting quality of the NMAs was moderate, but the methodological quality was very low. The reporting and methodological quality of future NMAs, especially for Chinese studies, need further improvement. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview. Objectives To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Methods The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety. Main results Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and = 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29). Authors' conclusions We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

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: Multiple studies and meta-analyses have reported the diagnostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP) in several diseases. However, the precision, and influence of potential bias regarding the diagnostic values of existing evidence may have implications for clinical practice. Methods: We performed an umbrella review of diagnostic test accuracy studies of CRP for diseases by searching PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases up to March 7, 2021. Five independent reviewers evaluated eligibility, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. We descriptively analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of CRP for multiple diseases, heterogeneity between studies, and publication bias. Results: Seventy-four meta-analyses were included, with 13 diseases classified according to the International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11). The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was mostly low, with only 16 meta-analyses rated as moderate or high, including seven diseases classified by ICD-11. CRP had a relatively greater diagnostic accuracy for two of these diseases. For postoperative infectious complications after bariatric surgery, sensitivity and specificity were 0.81 (0.34-1) and 0.91 (0.73-1), respectively. For anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery, sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (0.75-0.99) and 0.95 (0.75-0.99), respectively. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of CRP for multiple diseases has been extensively studied; however, most studies have low methodological quality. Evidence indicates that CRP has a relatively greater diagnostic accuracy for inflammation and infection diseases, especially for postoperative infectious complications after bariatric surgery and anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.

Objective In recent years, there are several systematic reviews published on animal experiments of Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) guidelines provide a guarantee for significantly improving the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MAs) to a certain extent; however, there are still certain defects found in the quality of SRs/MAs of animal experiments of TCM. It has been found that especially, the descriptions of the rationale and animal characteristics of TCM interventions are inadequate. As a result, we have developed a novel reporting guideline for SRs/MAs of animal experimental in the field of TCM (PRISMA-ATCM) to overcome these problems. Methods PRISMA-ATCM reporting guidelines were formed by analyzing both the status and quality of published SRs/MAs of animal experiments and consulting experts in the related fields, and then by Delphi consultation, consensus meeting and revision. Results Among the 27 items on the PRISMA checklist, Title (1), Structured summary (2), Rationale (3), Objectives (4), Protocol and registration (5), Eligibility criteria (6), Data items (11), Planned methods of analysis (14), Study characteristics (18), Summary of evidence (24), Limitations (25), and Funding (27) have been extensively revised and expanded, to specifically include the details about TCM intervention and animal characteristics. In addition, illustrative examples and explanations have been provided for each item. Conclusion PRISMA-ATCM could markedly improve the quality SRs/MAs of animal experiments in the field of TCM.

Objective: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation. Methods: Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). Findings: Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Conclusions: The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.

Objective: To conduct a cross-sectional survey on the application status of the Grades of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Study Design and Setting: : We searched CSRs of TCM from the inception to December 2020 in the Cochrane Library database. General characteristics and details of GRADE were extracted. Results: Among 226 CSRs of TCM, 86 (38.05%) involving 711 outcomes used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. Topics mainly focused on genitourinary diseases (17.44%), diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue (11.63%), and diseases of the nervous system (10.47%). Only 15.89% of the outcomes reported high or moderate certainty of evidence. Acupuncture was the most common intervention. There were no significant differences in evidence certainty between acupuncture and non-acupuncture, between TCM alone and integrated Chinese and western medicine, or between Chinese patent medicines and non-Chinese patent medicines ( P > 0.05). Among 1 273 instances of downgrading, 44.62% were due to the risk of bias and 40.14% due to imprecision. Conclusion: Overall, GRADE approach is not widely used in CSRs of TCM. The certainty of evidence is generally low to very low, mainly because of the serious risk of bias and imprecision. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.