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.

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.