BackgroundAn increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic values of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in infectious diseases (IDs).AimThis umbrella analysis aimed to assess the potential risk of bias in existing SRs and to summarize the published diagnostic values of NGS in different IDs.MethodWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023 for SRs assessing the diagnostic validity of NGS for IDs. Two investigators independently determined review eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated reporting quality, risk of bias, methodological quality, and evidence certainty in the included SRs.ResultsEleven SRs were analyzed. Most SRs exhibited a moderate level of reporting quality, while a serious risk of bias was observed in all SRs. The diagnostic performance of NGS in detecting pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection was notably robust, showing excellent sensitivity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, very low certainty) and specificity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97, very low certainty). NGS exhibited high specificity for central nervous system infection, bacterial meningoencephalitis, and tuberculous meningitis. The sensitivity to these infectious diseases was moderate. NGS demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for multiple infections and pulmonary infections.ConclusionThis umbrella analysis indicates that NGS is a promising technique for diagnosing pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection with excellent sensitivity and specificity. More high-quality original research and SRs are needed to verify the current findings.

Objectives: To identify and synthesise interventions and implementation strategies to optimise patient flow, addressing admission delays, discharge delays, and after-hours discharges in adult intensive care units. Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Five electronic databases, including CINAHL, PubMed, Emcare, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, were searched from 2007 to 2023 to identify articles describing interventions to enhance patient flow practices in adult intensive care units. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. All data was synthesised using a narrative approach. Setting: Adult intensive care units. Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, mainly comprising quality improvement projects (n = 3) or before-and-after studies (n = 4). Intervention types included changing workflow processes, introducing decision support tools, publishing quality indicator data, utilising outreach nursing services, and promoting multidisciplinary communication. Various implementation strategies were used, including one-on-one training, in-person knowledge transfer, digital communication, and digital data synthesis and display. Most studies (n = 6) reported a significant improvement in at least one intensive care process-related outcome, although fewer studies specifically reported improvements in admission delays (0/0), discharge delays (1/2), and after-hours discharge (2/4). Two out of six studies reported significant improvements in patient-related outcomes after implementing the intervention. Conclusion: Organisational-level strategies, such as protocols and alert systems, were frequently employed to improve patient flow within ICUs, while healthcare professional-level strategies to enhance communication were less commonly used. While most studies improved ICU processes, only half succeeded in significantly reducing discharge delays and/or after-hours discharges, and only a third reported improved patient outcomes, highlighting the need for more effective interventions. Implications for clinical practice: The findings of this review can guide the development of evidence-based, targeted, and tailored interventions aimed at improving patient and organisational outcomes.