Background: At the inter of old age and illness, older adults with life-threatening illnesses (LTI) are a group who often show resilience and seek validation of life, acceptance, and integration of past and now, even under the fear of loss, suffering, and dying evoked by life adversities. Life review has been widely conducted to help older adults enhance well-being and cope with burdens. Spirituality is an important part of an older adult' overall well-being, especially for those with LTI. However, few review studies examined the effectiveness of life review interventions on psychospiritual outcomes among this population. The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of life review on psychospiritual well-being among older adults with LTI.Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration was conducted. Database searches included PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, the Campbell Library, EBSCO, CNKI, and the Airiti Library up to March 2020. Gray literature and reference lists from relevant articles were also searched and reviewed.Results: In total, 34 studies were included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis for outcomes of depression (n = 24), quality-of-life (QOL) (n = 10), anxiety (n = 5), life satisfaction (n = 3), mood (n = 3), apathy (n = 2), and general well-being (n = 2). Other psychospiritual outcome measures included spirituality, self-esteem, meaning in life, hope, and some multi-dimensional instruments. The studies greatly varied in program design, content, format, length, and more. Although with high heterogeneity, meta-analysis results demonstrated standardized mean differences in favor of life review in decreasing depression, anxiety, negative mood, and increasing positive mood and QOL compared with the control group.Conclusion: This review calls for including more psycho-spiritual well-being measures among interventions for older adults with LTI, as well as studies with rigorous designs in future research.

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: Neurocognitive disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia, and Alzheimer's disease, not only harm people's cognitive function but also lead to negative emotions, poor quality of life (QOL), and unsatisfactory level of well-being. Resilience can be defined as a dynamic and amendable process, which maintains or improves life satisfaction and quick recovery from own dilemma. However, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has thus far examined the effectiveness of resilience interventions among persons with neurocognitive disorders, and the results of RCTs were inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of resilience interventions on psychosocial outcomes among persons with neurocognitive disorders. Methods: Nine electronic Chinese and English databases (the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, Eric, JSTOR, CNKI, and WANGFANG) were searched through April 2021. Only RCTs were included, and the quality of the included studies was assessed by the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool. Meta-analysis was carried out on psychosocial outcomes, and heterogeneity was investigated by subgroup and sensitivity analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used for meta-analysis. Results: Fourteen RCT studies were identified, representing a total of 2,442 participants with neurocognitive disorders. The risk of bias was high or unclear for most included studies in the domains of allocation concealment, blinding participants, and interventionists. Meta-analysis showed that heterogeneity was low or moderate. There were significant differences in favor of resilience interventions compared with control on the outcome of QOL, using the Quality of Life-Alzheimer Disease scale (QOL-AD) [I 2 = 36%, standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.14, 95% CI (0.02, 0.26), p = 0.02], and no significant differences on depression, using the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) [I 2 = 41%, SMD = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.34, 0.05), p = 0.16], and neuropsychiatric symptoms using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) [I 2 = 62%, SMD = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.37, -0.16), p ≤ 0.46]. Conclusions: Resilience interventions had a significant benefit on QOL but no significant benefit on depression and neuropsychiatric behavioral symptoms. More evidence is needed to answer questions about how to implement resilience interventions and how to evaluate their effectiveness.

Objectives: To compare different modalities of renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults with acute kidney injury. Data sources: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 25 May, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different renal replacement therapy modalities in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Study selection: Ten reviewers (working in pairs) independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data extraction: We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. The primary analysis was a four-node analysis: continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. The secondary analysis subdivided these four nodes into nine nodes including continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodiafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis with hemofiltration, slow efficiency extended dialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration, and peritoneal dialysis. We set the minimal important difference threshold for mortality as 2.5% (relative difference, 0.04). Data synthesis: Thirty randomized controlled trials (n = 3,774 patients) proved eligible. There may be no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18; low certainty), whereas continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated a possible increase in mortality compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; low certainty) and peritoneal dialysis (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.49; low certainty). Continuous renal replacement therapy may increase renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.45; low certainty), whereas both continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis may be worse for renal recovery compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis and peritoneal dialysis (low certainty). Peritoneal dialysis was probably associated with the shortest duration of renal support and length of ICU stay compared with other interventions (low certainty for most comparisons). Slow efficiency extended dialysis may be associated with shortest length of hospital stay (low or moderate certainty for all comparisons) and days of mechanical ventilation (low certainty for all comparisons) compared with other interventions. There was no difference between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in terms of hypotension (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.16; moderate certainty) or other complications of therapy, but an increased risk of hypotension and bleeding was seen with both modalities compared with peritoneal dialysis (low or moderate certainty). Complications of slow efficiency extended dialysis were not sufficiently reported to inform comparisons. Conclusions: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest there is no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis although continuous renal replacement therapy may increases renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis. Slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration may be the most effective intervention at reducing mortality. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with good efficacy, and the least number of complications however may not be practical in all settings. Importantly, all conclusions are based on very low to moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision. At the very least, ICU clinicians should feel comfortable that the differences between continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and, where clinically appropriate, peritoneal dialysis are likely small, and any of these modalities is a reasonable option to employ in critically ill patients.

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.