Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented policymakers with time-sensitive decision problems and a rapidly increasing volume of research, not all of which was robust, or relevant to local contexts. A bespoke evidence review process supporting stakeholder engagement was developed as part of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC), which could flexibly react to the needs of decision-makers, to address urgent requests within days or months as required. Aims: To describe and appraise the WCEC review process and methods and identify key learning points. Methods: Three types of rapid review products were used, which could accommodate the breadth of decision problems and topics covered. Stakeholder (including public) engagement was integrated from the onset and supported throughout. The methods used were tailored depending on the needs of the decision-maker, type of research question, timeframe, and volume and type of evidence. We appraised the overall process and compared the methods used with the most recent and relevant best practice guidance. Results: The remote collaboration between research teams, establishing a clear pathway to impact upfront, and the strong stakeholder involvement embedded in the review process were considered particular strengths. Several key learning points were identified, which focused on: enhancing stakeholders' abilities to identify focused policy-relevant research questions; the collection and storage of review protocols at a central location; tightening quality assurance process regarding study selection, data extraction and quality assessment; adequate reporting of methodological shortcuts and understanding by stakeholders; piloting of an algorithm for assigning study design descriptors, and a single quality assessment tool covering multiple study designs; and incorporate, where appropriate an assessment of the confidence in the overall body of evidence using GRADE or similar framework. Conclusions: The review process enabled a high volume of questions that were directly relevant to policy and clinical decision making to be addressed in a timely manner using a transparent and tailored approach.

Background Obinutuzumab was approved in China in June 2021 used in combination with chemotherapy (followed by obinutuzumab maintenance) for the treatment of adult patients with previously untreated stage II bulky, III, or IV follicular lymphoma (FL). The clinical application of obinutuzumab has recently begun in China, but there is a lack of evidence to determine under which circumstances it should be considered the treatment of choice. A comprehensive assessment is necessary to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab in adult patients with FL.Objective To summarize the evidence on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab in adult patients with FL, aiming to provide medical professionals with evidence for informed choices in clinical practice.Methods The approach to this evidence synthesis was a rapid review of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/meta-analyses), health technology assessment (HTA) reports, and pharmacoeconomic studies that brings together and summarizes the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab in adult patients with FL. A literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, CNKI, Weipu database, the Cochrane Library, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) database, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and Canada's Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), National Institute For Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Institute For Clinical And Economic Review (ICER), Grey Literature Database and Grey Net International. The studies on obinutuzumab for FL were searched in full text with obinutuzumab, systematic review, meta-analysis, economics, cost, and health technology assessment as keywords, with a search time frame from the date of database creation to 29 November 2024. The literature was screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data were meticulously extracted and synthesized by two authors. Simultaneously, the quality of the literature was thoroughly assessed.Results Obinutuzumab based chemotherapy (the chemotherapy regimen-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP); cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP); or bendamustine) significantly prolonged progression free survival (PFS) compared to other chemotherapy regimen at primary and updated analyses. The incidence of grade 3-5 AEs, infusion-related reactions (IRRs), and infection were higher in the obinutuzumab based chemotherapy group compared to other chemotherapies. The economic researches conducted in China, United States, Japan, Italy and Norway had demonstrated that obinutuzumab-based chemothrepy was cost-effective compared to other chemothrepies. Although obinutuzumab significantly prolonged PFS and was cost-effective, its safety profile was considered lower.Conclusion Compared with other chemothrapy regimen, obinutuzumab based chemotherapy significantly prolonged PFS and was cost-effective, while its safety profile was considered lower. Therefore, medical professionals should be caution when using or introducing obinutuzumab treatment for FL patients.

Background: Asthma control is influenced by multiple factors. These factors must be considered when appraising asthma interventions and their effectiveness in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates [UAE]). Based on published studies, the most prevalent asthma treatment in these countries are fixed dose combinations (FDC) of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA). This study is a rapid review of the literature on: (a) factors associated with asthma control in the GCC countries and (b) generalisability of ICS/LABA FDC effectiveness studies. Methods: To review local factors associated with asthma control and, generalisability of published ICS/LABA FDC studies, two rapid reviews were conducted. Review 1 targeted literature pertaining to asthma control factors in GCC countries. Eligible studies were appraised, and clustering methodology used to summarise factors. Review 2 assessed ICS/LABA FDC studies in conditions close to actual clinical practice (i.e. effectiveness studies). Eligibility was determined by reviewing study characteristics. Evaluation of studies focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In both reviews, initial (January 2018) and updated (November 2019) searches were conducted in EMBASE and PubMed databases. Eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklists. Results: We identified 51 publications reporting factors associated with asthma control. These publications reported studies conducted in Saudi Arabia (35), Qatar (5), Kuwait (5), UAE (3), Oman (1) and multiple countries (2). The most common factors associated with asthma control were: asthma-related education (13 articles), demographics (11articles), comorbidities (11 articles) and environmental exposures (11 articles). Review 2 identified 61 articles reporting ICS/LABA FDC effectiveness studies from countries outside of the GCC. Of these, six RCTs were critically appraised. The adequacy of RCTs in informing clinical practice varied when appraised against previously published criteria. Conclusions: Asthma-related education was the most recurring factor associated with asthma control in the GCC countries. Moreover, the generalisability of ICS/LABA FDC studies to this region is variable. Hence, asthma patients in the region, particularly those on ICS/LABA FDC, will continue to require physician review and oversight. While our findings provide evidence for local treatment guidelines, further research is required in GCC countries to establish the causal pathways through which asthma-related education influence asthma control for patients on ICS/LABA FDC therapy.

Background: It is well-known that public health education plays a crucial role in the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases, but how health providers should advise families and parents to obtain health education information is a challenging question. With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreading around the world, this rapid review aims to answer that question and thus to promote evidence-based decision making in health education policy and practice. Methods: We systematically searched the literature on health education during COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemics in Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data from their inception until March 31, 2020. The potential bias of the studies was assessed by Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool. Results: Of 1,067 papers found, 24 cross-sectional studies with a total of 35,967 participants were included in this review. The general public lacked good knowledge of SARS and MERS at the early stage of epidemics. Some people's knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of COVID-19 had been improved, but the health behaviors of some special groups including children and their parents need to be strengthened. Negative emotions including fear and stigmatization occurred during the outbreaks. Reliable health information was needed to improve public awareness and mental health for infectious diseases. Health information from nonprofit, government and academic websites was more accurate than privately owned commercial websites and media websites. Conclusions: For educating and cultivating children, parents should obtain information from the official websites of authorities such as the World Health Organization ( WHO) and national Centers for Disease Control, or from other sources endorsed by these authorities, rather than from a general search of the internet or social media

Aim: A discussion of the potential use of rapid review approaches in nursing and midwifery research which presents a worked example from a study conducted to inform policy decision-making. Background: Rapid reviews, which can be defined as outputs of a knowledge synthesis approach that involves modifying or omitting elements of a systematic review process due to limited time or resources, are becoming increasingly popular in health research. This paper provides guidance on how a rapid review can be undertaken and discusses the strengths and challenges of the approach. Design: Data from a rapid review of the literature undertaken in 2015 is used as a worked example to highlight one method of undertaking a rapid review. Implications for nursing: Seeking evidence to inform health policy-making or evidence based practice is a process that can be limited by time constraints, making it difficult to conduct comprehensive systematic reviews. Rapid reviews provide a solution as they are a systematic method of synthesizing evidence quickly. Conclusions: There is no single best way to conduct a rapid review but researchers can ensure they are adhering to best practice by being systematic, having subject and methodological expertise on the review team, reporting the details of the approach they took, highlighting the limitations of the approach, engaging in good evidence synthesis and communicating regularly with end users, other team members and experts.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are two of the most common and costly musculoskeletal conditions globally. Healthcare service demands mean that multiple condition group-based interventions are of increasing clinical interest, but no reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of group-based physiotherapy-led self-management interventions (GPSMI) for both conditions. Objectives: This rapid review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of GPSMI for OA and CLBP. Design: Rapid reviews are an increasingly valid means of expediting knowledge dissemination and are particularly useful for addressing focused research questions. Method: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Structured group-based interventions that aimed to promote self-management delivered by health-care professionals (including at least one physiotherapist) involving adults' with OA and/or CLBP were included. The screening and selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results: 22 Studies were found (10 OA, 12 CLBP). No significant difference was found between the effectiveness of GPSMI and individual physiotherapy or usual medical management for any outcome. Conclusions: GPSMI is as clinically effective as individual physiotherapy or usual medical management, but the best methods of measuring clinical effectiveness warrant further investigation. Further research is also needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of GPSMI and its implications. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are two of the most common and costly musculoskeletal conditions globally. Healthcare service demands mean that multiple condition group-based interventions are of increasing clinical interest, but no reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of group-based physiotherapy-led self-management interventions (GPSMI) for both conditions. Objectives: This rapid review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of GPSMI for OA and CLBP. Design: Rapid reviews are an increasingly valid means of expediting knowledge dissemination and are particularly useful for addressing focused research questions. Method: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Structured group-based interventions that aimed to promote self-management delivered by health-care professionals (including at least one physiotherapist) involving adults' with OA and/or CLBP were included. The screening and selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results: 22 Studies were found (10 OA, 12 CLBP). No significant difference was found between the effectiveness of GPSMI and individual physiotherapy or usual medical management for any outcome. Conclusions: GPSMI is as clinically effective as individual physiotherapy or usual medical management, but the best methods of measuring clinical effectiveness warrant further investigation. Further research is also needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of GPSMI and its implications.