COVID-19 is not only associated with substantial acute liver and kidney injuries, but also with an elevated risk of post-acute sequelae involving the kidney and liver system. We aimed to investigate whether COVID-19 exposure increases the long-term risk of kidney and liver disease, and what are the magnitudes of these associations. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, , and the Living Overview of the Evidence COVID-19 Repository for cohort studies estimating the association between COVID-19 and kidney and liver outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Fifteen cohort studies with more than 32 million participants were included in the systematic review COVID-19 was associated with a 35% greater risk of kidney diseases (10 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence) and 54% greater risk of liver disease (3 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence). The absolute increases due to COVID-19 for acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and liver test abnormality were 3, 8, and 3 per 1000 persons, respectively. Subgroup analyses found no differences between different type of kidney and liver diseases. The findings provide further evidence for the association between COVID-19 and incident kidney and liver conditions. The absolute magnitude of the effect of COVID-19 on kidney and liver outcomes was, however, relatively small.

Background The health effects of dietary fats are a controversial issue on which experts and authoritative organizations have often disagreed. Care providers, guideline developers, policy-makers, and researchers use systematic reviews to advise patients and members of the public on optimal dietary habits, and to formulate public health recommendations and policies. Existing reviews, however, have serious limitations that impede optimal dietary fat recommendations, such as a lack of focus on outcomes important to people, substantial risk of bias (RoB) issues, ignoring absolute estimates of effects together with comprehensive assessments of the certainty of the estimates for all outcomes.Objective We therefore propose a methodologically innovative systematic review using direct and indirect evidence on diet and food-based fats (i.e., reduction or replacement of saturated fat with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, or carbohydrates or protein) and the risk of important health outcomes.Methods We will collaborate with an experienced research librarian to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing saturated fat and our health outcomes of interest. In duplicate, we will screen, extract results from primary studies, assess their RoB, conduct de novo meta-analyses and/or network meta-analysis, assess the impact of missing outcome data on meta-analyses, present absolute effect estimates, and assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE contextualized approach. Our work will inform recommendations on saturated fat based on international standards for reporting systematic reviews and guidelines.Conclusion Our systematic review and meta-analysis will provide the most comprehensive and rigorous summary of the evidence addressing the relationship between saturated fat modification for people-important health outcomes. The evidence from this review will be used to inform public health nutrition guidelines.

OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 20 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian random effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS 23 randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis performed on 26 June 2020. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low because of risk of bias (lack of blinding) and serious imprecision. Glucocorticoids were the only intervention with evidence for a reduction in death compared with standard care (risk difference 37 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 63 fewer to 11 fewer, moderate certainty) and mechanical ventilation (31 fewer per 1000 patients, 47 fewer to 9 fewer, moderate certainty). These estimates are based on direct evidence; network estimates for glucocorticoids compared with standard care were less precise because of network heterogeneity. Three drugs might reduce symptom duration compared with standard care: hydroxychloroquine (mean difference -4.5 days, low certainty), remdesivir (-2.6 days, moderate certainty), and lopinavir-ritonavir (-1.2 days, low certainty). Hydroxychloroquine might increase the risk of adverse events compared with the other interventions, and remdesivir probably does not substantially increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. No other interventions included enough patients to meaningfully interpret adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION Glucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care. The effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations.

Introduction The adaptation of guidelines is an increasingly used methodology for the efficient development of contextualised recommendations. Nevertheless, there is no specific reporting guidance. The essential Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement could be useful for reporting adapted guidelines, but it does not address all the important aspects of the adaptation process. The objective of our project is to develop an extension of the RIGHT statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist). Methods and analysis To develop the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist, we will use a multistep process that includes: (1) establishment of a Working Group; (2) generation of an initial checklist based on the RIGHT statement; (3) optimisation of the checklist (an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review by guideline developers and users and a final assessment of adapted guidelines); and (4) approval of the final checklist. At each step of the process, we will calculate absolute frequencies and proportions, use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions, discuss the results, draft a report and refine the checklist. Ethics and dissemination We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona, Spain). We will disseminate the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist by publishing into a peer-reviewed journal, presenting to relevant stakeholders and translating into different languages. We will continuously seek feedback from stakeholders, surveil new relevant evidence and, if necessary, update the checklist. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Background: Due to the disease's progressive nature, advance care planning (ACP) is recommended for people with early stage dementia. General practitioners (GPs) should initiate ACP because of their longstanding relationships with their patients and their early involvement with the disease, however ACP is seldom applied. Aim: To determine the barriers and facilitators faced by GPs related to ACP with people with dementia. Data sources: We systematically searched the relevant databases for papers published between January 1995 and December 2016, using the terms: primary healthcare, GP, dementia, and ACP. We conducted a systematic integrative review following Whittemore and Knafl's method. Papers containing empirical data about GP barriers and/or facilitators regarding ACP for people with dementia were included. We evaluated quality using the Mixed-Method-Appraisal-Tool and analyzed data using qualitative content analysis. Results: Ten qualitative, five quantitative, and one mixed-method paper revealed four themes: timely initiation of ACP, stakeholder engagement, important aspects of ACP the conversation, and prerequisites for ACP. Important barriers were: uncertainty about the timing of ACP, how to plan for an uncertain future, lack of knowledge about dementia, difficulties assessing people with dementia's decisional capacities, and changing preferences. Facilitators for ACP were: an early start when cognitive decline is still mild, inclusion of all stakeholders, and discussing social and medical issues aimed at maintaining normal life. Conclusion: Discussing future care is difficult due to uncertainties about the future and the decisional capacities of people with dementia. Based on the facilitators, we recommend that GPs use a timely and goal-oriented approach and involve all stakeholders. ACP discussions should focus on the ability of people with dementia to maintain normal daily function as well as on their quality of life, instead of end-of-life-discussions only. GPs need training to acquire knowledge and skills to timely initiate collaborative ACP discussions.

BACKGROUND:Involving people with dementia in research is not self-evident. Inclusion of people with dementia in the development process of user-friendly, supportive IT applications may be especially useful to improve the quality of these applications and may be beneficial to the person with dementia. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the involvement of people with dementia in developing supportive IT applications. The focus of involvement was on phase, methods, role and impact on the quality of the IT application and on the person with dementia.METHOD:A systematic search was undertaken using Cochrane Library, PubMED, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Publications were selected using the following inclusion criteria: publications had to address a development process of an IT application involving people with dementia. The BMJ checklist was used to assess the quality of the included publications.RESULTS:Twenty-six publications relating to 15 IT programs met the inclusion criteria. People with dementia were mainly involved in the exploratory and technical development phases. The methods most frequently used to involve the participants were interviews, observations and usability try-outs. In most studies, participants were objects of study and informants. People with dementia provided useful feedback and gave valuable recommendations for researchers and designers regarding the development of user-friendly, supportive, IT applications. Involvement in all phases may have empowering effects on people with dementia.CONCLUSION:To develop valuable, user-friendly, supportive IT applications that increase the quality of life of people with dementia involvement in all phases of the development process is of great importance.

Objective To determine the effects of educational interventions about dementia, directed at primary care providers (PCPs). Design We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl and the Cochrane library for relevant articles. Two researchers independently assessed the citations identified against the following inclusion criteria: educational intervention on dementia directed at PCPs and study designs being randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) or interrupted time series (ITS) analyses. Outcomes of interest were PCPs' knowledge and attitude on dementia, and quality of dementia care at PCP and patient level. Results Of 3953 citations identified, six articles representing five studies (four cluster RCTs and one CBA) were eligible, describing educational interventions directed at 1904 PCPs. Compliance to the interventions varied from 18 to 100%. Systematic review of the studies showed moderate positive results. Five articles reported at least some effects of the interventions. A small group workshop and a decision support system (DSS) increased dementia detection rates. An interactive 2-h seminar raised GPs' suspicion of dementia. Adherence to dementia guidelines only improved when an educational intervention was combined with the appointment of dementia care managers. This combined intervention also improved patients' and caregivers' quality of life. Effects on knowledge and attitudes were minor. Conclusion Educational interventions for PCPs that require active participation improve detection of dementia. Educational interventions alone do not seem to increase adherence to dementia guidelines. To effectively change professionals' performance in primary dementia care, education probably needs to be combined with adequate reimbursement or other organizational incentives. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

BACKGROUND: The impairment of verbal skills of people with dementia challenges communication. The aim of this review was to study the effects of nonpharmacological interventions in residential and nursing homes on (1) communication between residents with dementia and care staff, and (2) the neuropsychiatric symptoms of residents with dementia.METHOD: Pubmed, PsychInfo, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from relevant publications were systematically searched to find articles about controlled interventions with communication strategies. The data collected were pooled and subjected to a meta-analysis.RESULTS: Nineteen intervention studies were selected for this review. They included structured and communicative 'sessions at set times' for residents (e.g. life review) and communication techniques in activities of 'daily care' applied by care staff (e.g. sensitivity to nonverbal communication). A meta-analysis of five set-time interventions (communication) and another meta-analysis of four set-time interventions (neuropsychiatric outcomes) found no significant overall effects. Individual set-time intervention studies report positive effects on communication when interventions are single-task sessions, like life review or one-on-one conversation. Interventions around daily care activities had positive effects on communication outcomes. Effects of both types of interventions on neuropsychiatric symptoms were divergent.CONCLUSION: This review indicates that care staff can improve their communication with residents with dementia when strategies are embedded in daily care activities or interventions are single-task sessions at set times. These results offer the possibility of improving the quality of care, but not of directly reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms. More research is needed to study the effect of communication interventions on neuropsychiatric symptoms.