OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the prevalence of various cancers in NAFLD patients and the association between NAFLD and cancer.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to March 2022 to identify eligible studies reporting the prevalence of NAFLD and the risk of incident cancers among adult individuals (aged ≥18 years). Data from selected studies were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using random effects models to obtain the pooled prevalence with the 95% CI. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS: We identified 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria, involving 222,523 adults and 3 types of cancer: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), breast cancer, and other types of extrahepatic cancer. The overall pooled prevalence of NAFLD and cancer was 26% (95% CI 16%-35%), while 25% of people had NAFLD and HCC (95% CI 7%-42%). NAFLD and breast cancer had the highest prevalence out of the 3 forms of cancer at 30% (95% CI 14%-45%), while the pooled prevalence for NAFLD and other cancers was 21% (95% CI 12%-31%).

CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that people with NAFLD may be at an increased risk of cancer that might not affect not only the liver but also other organs, such as the breast and bile duct. The findings serve as important evidence for policymakers to evaluate and recommend measures to reduce the prevalence of NAFLD through lifestyle and environmental preventive approaches.

METHODS: Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports.

RESULTS: Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library from inception to Feb 24th, 2017, to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that assessed interventions or strategies to improve oral anticoagulant use in AF patients.

RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion but only 11 were included in the qualitative analyses, corresponding to 40 unique meta-analyses, as the remaining systematic reviews had overlapping primary studies. There was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of genotype-guided dosing and pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics for stroke prevention in AF patients. Conversely, patient's self-management and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), in general were superior to warfarin for preventing stroke and reducing mortality. All interventions showed comparable risk of major bleeding with warfarin.

Objective: To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of prospective observational studies that assessed the association of dietary patterns, specific foods, food groups, beverages (including alcohol), macronutrients, and micronutrients with the incidence of CRC.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to September 2019.

Evidence Review: Only meta-analyses of prospective observational studies with a cohort study design were eligible. Evidence of association was graded according to established criteria as follows: convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant.

Results: From 9954 publications, 222 full-text articles (2.2%) were evaluated for eligibility, and 45 meta-analyses (20.3%) that described 109 associations between dietary factors and CRC incidence were selected. Overall, 35 of the 109 associations (32.1%) were nominally statistically significant using random-effects meta-analysis models; 17 associations (15.6%) demonstrated large heterogeneity between studies (I2 > 50%), whereas small-study effects were found for 11 associations (10.1%). Excess significance bias was not detected for any association between diet and CRC. The primary analysis identified 5 (4.6%) convincing, 2 (1.8%) highly suggestive, 10 (9.2%) suggestive, and 18 (16.5%) weak associations between diet and CRC, while there was no evidence for 74 (67.9%) associations. There was convincing evidence of an association of intake of red meat (high vs low) and alcohol (≥4 drinks/d vs 0 or occasional drinks) with the incidence of CRC and an inverse association of higher vs lower intakes of dietary fiber, calcium, and yogurt with CRC risk. The evidence for convincing associations remained robust following sensitivity analyses.

Objective: This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the use of chia seed for a wide variety of health conditions.

Data Sources: A number of databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched systematically.

Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that assessed the clinical effects of chia seed consumption in human participants were included. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Data Extraction: Data on study design, blinding status, characteristics of participants, chia seed intervention, comparator, clinical assessment, duration of intake, interval of assessment, and study funding status were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Twelve trials were included. Participants included healthy persons, athletes, diabetic patients, and individuals with metabolic syndrome. Pooling of results showed no significant differences except for the following findings of subgroup analysis at higher doses of chia seed: (1) lower postprandial blood glucose level (mean difference [MD] of -33.95 incremental area under the curve [iAUC] [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -61.85, -6.05] and -51.60 iAUC [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -79.64, -23.56] at medium doses and high doses, respectively); (2) lower high-density lipoprotein in serum (MD of -0.10 mmol/L [95%CI, -0.20, -0.01]); and (3) lower diastolic blood pressure (MD of -7.14 mmHg [95%CI, -11.08, -3.19]). The quality of all evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was low or very low. All trials employed only surrogate markers as outcomes.

Conclusions: Future trials with improved methodological quality, well-described clinical events, and validated surrogate markers as outcomes are needed to support the potential health benefits of chia seed consumption.

METHODS: Four attributes (ie, the scientific proof of effectiveness, the scientific proof of safety, the source of recommendation, and cost) were identified from a systematic review and focus group interviews. They were used to develop a DCE questionnaire. Consumers at community pharmacies in Malaysia were asked to respond to 8 DCE choice sets. A conditional logit model was employed to obtain the relative importance of each attribute and to estimate respondents' WTP for nutraceuticals.

RESULTS: A total of 111 valid responses were analyzed. A negative constant term in the developed model indicated that generally the respondents preferred not to use nutraceuticals before they considered the study attributes. The respondents preferred nutraceuticals with no side effect, clear evidence of effectiveness, and recommendation of a healthcare professional. The respondents were willing to pay $252/month more for nutraceuticals proven with no side effect than for those without proof of safety, and $102/month more for nutraceuticals proven with clear effectiveness than for those without proof of effectiveness.

Methods: We searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL) and internet sources for randomized controlled trials, ongoing clinical trials, and unpublished studies up to August 2016. Studies that assessed CVCs with antimicrobial impregnation with nonimpregnated catheters or catheters with another impregnation were included. Primary outcomes were clinically diagnosed sepsis, catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and all-cause mortality. We performed a network meta-analysis to estimate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Sixty studies with 17255 catheters were included. The effects of 14 impregnations were investigated. Both CRBSI and catheter colonization were the most commonly evaluated outcomes. Silver-impregnated CVCs significantly reduced clinically diagnosed sepsis compared with silver-impregnated cuffs (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, .29-.99]). When compared to no impregnation, significant CRBSI reduction was associated with minocycline-rifampicin (RR, 0.29 [95% CI, .16-.52]) and silver (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, .38-.86]) impregnations. No impregnations significantly reduced all-cause mortality. For catheter colonization, significant decreases were shown by miconazole-rifampicin (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, .05-.36]), 5-fluorouracil (RR, 0.34 [95% CI, .14-.82]), and chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, .50-.72]) impregnations compared with no impregnation. None of the studies evaluated antibiotic/antiseptic resistance as the outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

METHOD: Comprehensive search was conducted using Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Airiti. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using RevMan 5.3. A meta-regression was conducted to investigate the effects of mean age on MD of pain.

RESULTS: A total of 1479 children from 16 publications were included. Compared with the control group, using cold-vibrating device significantly decreased pain level above the age of 2 (MD -3.03, 95% CI: -3.38, -2.68), as well as lower anxiety level among parents (MD -1.3, 95% CI: -1.9, -0.7). Meta-regression demonstrated a significant negative correlation of pain score with age. For children at 8.5 years, cold-vibration reduced the pain score by 0.13 averagely for every increment in year compared with controls (MD -0.13; 95% CI: -0.25, -0.01). No adverse events were reported in included studies.

DISCUSSION: The cold-vibrating device reduced pain levels significantly among children without adverse effects. Variation of factors might contribute to the heterogeneity of our study, such as age, different needle procedures, psychological strategies…etc.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the association between TSB and kernicterus spectrum disorder (KSD).

METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL till July 2021. Two authors independently selected relevant cohort studies, extracted data (CHARMS checklist), assessed risk of bias (RoB) (QUIPS tool), and rated certainty-of-evidence (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). We pooled adjusted odds ratio (aOR) (random-effect) via generic inverse variance methods.

RESULTS: From 2,826 records retrieved, we included 37 studies (n = 648,979). Fifteen studies had low, 16 moderate, and 6 high RoB, with majority having concerns on confounder adjustment and statistical analysis. Twenty-two studies contributed meta-analysis data, and 15 were summarized narratively. TSB appears associated with KSD in infants with certain risk factors (aOR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07-1.13; 5 studies [n = 4,484]). However, TSB (aOR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.98-1.23; 1 study [n = 34,533]) or hyperbilirubinemia (aOR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.51-1.95; 2 studies [n = 56,578]) have no clear association with kernicterus or neurological diagnosis in overall neonatal population (moderate-certainty-evidence). One study shows that infants with hyperbilirubinemia appear likelier to develop attention-deficit disorder (aOR 1.90, 95% CI: 1.10-3.28) and autistic spectrum disorder (aOR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.03-2.49, n = 56,019) (low-certainty-evidence). Certain clinical factors appear associated with KSD, although very few studies contributed to the analyses.

METHODS: We searched 14 electronic databases from their inception until November 2015 for articles describing the use of herbal or dietary supplements in G6PD deficient individuals. Additional publications were identified from manually searching textbooks, conference abstracts and the grey literature. All study designs were included as long as they contained clinical information. These gathered findings were summarized narratively.

RESULTS: Thirty-two publications met inclusion criteria. These reported on 10 herbal and dietary supplements. Overall evidence linking haemolysis to a herbal/dietary supplement was only found for henna. No evidence of harm was observed for vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, Gingko biloba and α-lipoic acid.

METHODS: Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.

RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.