Background:Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. Objective:We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. Methods:For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). Results:The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. Conclusions:For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread globally. Due to the higher risk of mortality, the treatment of severe or critical patients is a top priority. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment has played an extremely important role in the fight against COVID-19 in China; a timely evidence summary on TCM in managing COVID-19 is crucial to update the knowledge of healthcare for better clinical management of COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of TCM treatments for severe/critical COVID-19 patients by systematically collecting and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (e.g., cohort). Methods: We searched nine databases up to 19th March 2022 and the reference lists of relevant publications. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. We performed qualitative systematic analysis with visual presentation of results and compared the direction and distribution of effect estimates for each patient's important outcome. We performed sensitivity analyses to observe the robustness of results by restricting analysis to studies with low risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 217,761 records, and 21 studies (6 RCTs and 15 observational studies) proved eligible. A total of 21 studies enrolled 12,981 severe/critical COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 57.21 years and a mean proportion of men of 47.91%. Compared with usual supportive treatments, the effect estimates of TCM treatments were consistent in direction, illustrating that TCM treatments could reduce the risk of mortality, rate of conversion to critical cases, and mechanical ventilation, and showed significant advantages in shortening the length of hospital stay, time to viral clearance, and symptom resolution. The results were similar when we restricted analyses to low-risk-bias studies. No serious adverse events were reported with TCM treatments, and no significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence suggests that TCM presents substantial advantages in treating severe/critical COVID-19 patients. TCM has a safety profile that is comparable to that of conventional treatment alone. TCMs have played an important role in China's prevention and treatment of COVID-19, which sets an example of using traditional medicine in preventing and treating COVID-19 worldwide.

Background: Although a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) have been published, no study has comprehensively summarized the clinical evidence from meta-analyses, or assessed the reporting or methodological quality of these reviews. Purpose: The present meta-research study was designed to fill the gaps in knowledge to inform future studies and allow enhanced clinical decision-making on saffron. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from inception to April 3 rd, 2021, for meta-analyses of clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of saffron. PRISMA 2009 and AMSTAR-2 were employed to assess the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses identified in the search, respectively. The present study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020220274. Results: Nineteen eligible systematic reviews with meta-analyses published in English were identified from 235 records. These meta-analyses were published in 12 peer-reviewed journals from 2013 to 2021. The heterogeneous results indicated that saffron significantly reduced fasting blood glucose, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, concentrations of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and improved symptoms of depression, cognitive function and sexual dysfunction compared with controls (mainly placebos). Common side effects of saffron consumption included nausea, dry mouth, poor appetite, and headache, but no serious adverse reactions were reported. Primary analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed that the reporting and methodological quality of reviews included in the study were highly correlated (p < 0.001). The quality of meta-analyses of saffron requires improvement by including a structured abstract, a prospective protocol and registration, explanation of the study designs within each study that is reviewed, the searches, risk of bias assessment, literature selection, and reporting of funding sources. Conclusion: The available evidence indicates that saffron is a safe plant for administration as a medicine and can improve diverse clinical outcomes, but the scientific quality of the published systematic reviews needs to be improved. Moreover, the clinical effects of saffron need to be confirmed through high-quality randomized trials in multiple countries with large sample sizes.

Research indicates that air pollution is a risk factor of an increased occurrence of diseases. However, evidence is limited on the effects of the pollution index on disease and whether temperature modifies the effects. The objectives were (i) to explore the effects of the Air Pollution Index (API) and specific indices for pollutants (PM10, NO2, and SO2) on respiratory emergency department (ED) visits in Beijing and (ii) to investigate whether temperature modified the effects of main air pollutants on respiratory ED visits. A quasi-Poisson generalized additive model was employed to examine the association of API and indices for pollutants with respiratory disease. Bivariate response surface model and stratification model (cold days, moderately cold days, moderately hot days, and hot days) were used to analyze the modification effects of temperature on air pollution and respiratory disease. The results showed that (i) the effects of API on respiratory diseases were similar to the index for PM(10)in Beijing. (ii) API and PM(10)were associated with increased respiratory ED visits on cold days and moderately cold days. Furthermore, the effects of PM(10)on respiratory disease on moderately cold days [Relative risk (RR) = 1.006 per 10 mu g/m(3), 95% CI 1.002-1.009] were stronger than on cold days (RR = 1.004 per 10 mu g/m(3), 95% CI 1.000-1.008). (iii) PM10(API) had a greater impact on children aged 10 to 17 years and females on moderately cold days, while the elderly had an increased risk of respiratory disease to PM10(RR = 1.008 per 10 mu g/m(3), 95% CI 1.002-1.013) and API (RR = 1.013 per 10, 95% CI 1.004-1.022) on cold days. In conclusion, temperature can modify the association between API and respiratory morbidity. A stronger correlation existed between PM(10)and respiratory diseases on moderately cold days, while the effects of cold days were less than that attributable to moderately cold days.

The benefits and harms of antipsychotic medication (APM) use in nursing home residents need to be examined because, although commonly used, APMs are considered an off-label use by the Food and Drug Administration for residents with dementia and behavioral problems. The objective of this study was to provide a realist literature review, summarizing original research studies on the clinical effects of conventional and atypical APM use in nursing home residents. Searches of multiple databases identified 424 potentially relevant research articles, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. Antipsychotic medication use in nursing home residents was found to have variable efficacy when used off-label with an increased risk of many adverse events, including mortality, hip fractures, thrombotic events, cardiovascular events and hospitalizations. Findings suggested certain APM dosing regimens (e.g. fixed-dose) and shorter duration of use might have fewer adverse events. Non-pharmacological interventions should still be considered the first-line treatment option for nursing home residents with dementia related behavioral disturbances, as more studies are needed to establish safer criteria for APM use in nursing homes residents.

Background A vast amount of literature on effects of pay-for-performance (P4P) in health care has been published. However, the evidence has become fragmented and it has become challenging to grasp the information included in it. Objectives To provide a comprehensive overview of effects of P4P in a broad sense by synthesizing findings from published systematic reviews. Methods Systematic literature search in five electronic databases for English, Spanish, and German language literature published between January 2000 and June 2011, supplemented by reference tracking and Internet searches. Two authors independently reviewed all titles, assessed articles’ eligibility for inclusion, determined a methodological quality score for each included article, and extracted relevant data. Results Twenty-two reviews contain evidence on a wide variety of effects. Findings suggest that P4P can potentially be (cost-)effective, but the evidence is not convincing; many studies failed to find an effect and there are still few studies that convincingly disentangled the P4P effect from the effect of other improvement initiatives. Inequalities among socioeconomic groups have been attenuated, but other inequalities have largely persisted. There is some evidence of unintended consequences, including spillover effects on unincentivized care. Several design features appear important in reaching desired effects. Conclusion Although data is available on a wide variety of effects, strong conclusions cannot be drawn due to a limited number of studies with strong designs. In addition, relevant evidence on particular effects may have been missed because no review has explicitly focused on these effects. More research is necessary on the relative merits of P4P and other types of incentives, as well as on the long-term impact on patient health and costs.

Authors' objectives: We have systematically collected and reviewed the evidence for clinical effectiveness and general safety issues for disease modifying treatments for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, synthesised evidence from randomised controlled trials and non-randomised registry-based studies using network meta-regression, and carefully interpreted the findings.