Background: Quantifying the resource use and cost of antimicrobial resistance establishes the magnitude of the problem and drives action. Objectives: Assessment of resource use and cost associated with infections with six key drug-resistant pathogens in Europe. Methods: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Econlit databases, and grey literature for the period 1 January 1990, to 21 June 2022. Study eligibility criteria: Resource use and cost outcomes (including excess length of stay, overall costs, and other excess in or outpatient costs) were compared between patients with defined antibiotic-resistant infections caused by carbapenem-resistant (CR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, CR or third-generation cephalosporin Escherichia coli (3GCREC) and Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, and patients with drug-susceptible or no infection. Participants: All patients diagnosed with drug-resistant bloodstream infections (BSIs). Interventions: NA. Assessment of risk of bias: An adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment tool, incorporating case-control, cohort, and economic assessment frameworks. Methods of data synthesis: Hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses were used to assess pathogen-specific resource use estimates. Results: Of 5969 screened publications, 37 were included in the review. Data were sparse and heterogeneous. Most studies estimated the attributable burden by, comparing resistant and susceptible pathogens (32/37). Four studies analysed the excess cost of hospitalization attributable to 3GCREC BSIs, ranging from -€ 2465.50 to € 6402.81. Eight studies presented adjusted excess length of hospital stay estimates for methicillin-resistant S. aureus and 3GCREC BSIs (4 each) allowing for Bayesian hierarchical analysis, estimating means of 1.26 (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.72 to 4.17) and 1.78 (95% CrI, -0.02 to 3.38) days, respectively. Conclusions: Evidence on most cost and resource use outcomes and across most pathogen-resistance combinations was severely lacking. Given the importance of this evidence for rational policymaking, further research is urgently needed.

Background: Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated by published individual patient data meta-analysis and Cochrane systematic review. However, there is no consensus on which is the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Present network meta-analysis aims to compare the differences of effect between all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in improving overall survival and disease-free survival, and to rate the certainty of evidence from present network meta-analysis. Methods: We will conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian method and according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov () to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone. We will assess the risk of bias of individual RCTs using a modified version of Cochrane tool. We will also use the advance of GRADE to rate the certainty of network meta-analysis. Data analysis will be performed with R-3.4.1 and WinBUGS software. Results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will firstly use both direct and indirect evidence to compare the differences of all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resected gastric cancer patients. This is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis, so the ethical approval and patient consent are not required.