DATA SOURCES: None.

STUDY SELECTION: Current literature describing the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

DATA EXTRACTION: Best practices for conducting, reporting, and appraising systematic review were summarized.

DATA SYNTHESIS: A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of healthcare interventions strategies to systematically improve identification of familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care and other community settings compared to usual care (incidental approaches to identify familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care and other community settings).

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register. Date of last search: 13 September 2021. We also searched databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) as well as handsearching relevant conference proceedings, reference lists of included articles, and the grey literature. Date of last searches: 05 March 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: As per the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group guidelines, we planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Eligible NRSI were non-randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted-time-series studies. We planned to selected studies with healthcare interventions strategies that aimed to systematically identify people with possible or definite clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia, in primary care and other community settings. These strategies would be compared with usual care or no intervention. We considered participants of any age from the general population who access primary care and other community settings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors planned to independently select studies according to the inclusion criteria, to extract data and assess for risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence (according to the GRADE criteria). We contacted corresponding study authors in order to obtain further information for all the studies considered in the review.

MAIN RESULTS: No eligible RCTs or NRSIs were identified for inclusion, however, we excluded 28 studies.

OBJECTIVES: We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s.

METHODS: We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible.

RESULTS: We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s).

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to understand the rapid response team's (RRT) effect on patient outcomes.

METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and two trial registers. The studies published up to May 6, 2022, from the inception date of the databases were included. Two researchers filtered the title, abstract and full text. The Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were used separately for randomized and non-randomized controlled trials for quality appraisal.

RESULTS: Sixty-one eligible studies were identified, four randomized controlled trials(RCTs), four non-randomized controlled trials, six interrupted time-series(ITS) design , and 47 pretest-posttest studies. A total of 52 studies reported hospital mortality, 51 studies reported cardiopulmonary arrests, 18 studies reported unplanned ICU admissions and ten studies reported LOS.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis.

OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious.

RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool.

SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking.

FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intravenous continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for the initial treatment of acute heart failure in adults.

SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through systematic searches of bibliographic databases and in clinical trials registers including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CPCI-S on the Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), and the European Union Trials register. We conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was performed on 29 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with AHF, NYHA classification III or IV, regardless of aetiology or ejection fraction, where trials compared intravenous continuous infusion of loop diuretics with intermittent bolus injection in AHF. We excluded trials with chronic stable heart failure, cardiogenic shock, renal artery stenosis, or end-stage renal disease. Additionally, we excluded studies combining loop diuretics with hypertonic saline, inotropes, vasoactive medications, or renal replacement therapy and trials where diuretic dosing was protocol-driven to achieve a target urine output, due to confounding factors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened papers for inclusion and reviewed full-texts. Outcomes included weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission following discharge, and occurrence of acute kidney injury. We performed risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis where data permitted and assessed certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS: The review included seven RCTs, spanning 32 hospitals in seven countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Data collection ranged from eight months to six years. Following exclusion of participants in subgroups with confounding treatments and different clinical settings, 681 participants were eligible for review. These additional study characteristics, coupled with our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, improve the applicability of the body of the evidence as they reflect real-world clinical practice. Meta-analysis was feasible for net weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and acute kidney injury. Literature review and narrative analysis explored daily fluid balance; cardiovascular mortality; B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) change; N-terminal-proBNP change; and adverse incidents such as ototoxicity, hypotension, and electrolyte imbalances. Risk of bias assessment revealed two studies with low overall risk, four with some concerns, and one with high risk. All sensitivity analyses excluded trials at high risk of bias. Only narrative analysis was conducted for 'daily fluid balance' due to diverse data presentation methods across two studies (169 participants, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect). Results of narrative analysis varied. For instance, one study reported higher daily fluid balance within the first 24 hours in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group, whereas there was no difference in fluid balance beyond this time point. Continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics may result in mean net weight loss of 0.86 kg more than bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.86 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.28; 5 trials, 497 participants; P < 0.001, I2 = 21%; very low-certainty evidence). Importantly, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias showed there was insufficient evidence for a difference in bodyweight loss between groups (MD 0.70 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.46; 3 trials, 378 participants; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality between continuous infusion and bolus injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.90; 5 trials, 530 participants; P = 0.19, I2 = 4%; low-certainty evidence). Despite sensitivity analysis, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. No trials measured cardiovascular mortality. There may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -4.84 to 2.64; 4 trials, 211 participants; P = 0.57, I2 = 88%; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis improved heterogeneity; however, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. There may be little to no difference in the readmission to hospital between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 3 trials, 400 participants; P = 0.31, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show insufficient evidence for a difference in the readmission to hospital between groups. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse event between continuous infusion and bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.49; 3 trials, 491 participants; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show that continuous infusion may make little to no difference on the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse events compared to the bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, and type of formulation.

SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We searched five online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The date of last search was 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised clinical trials assessing any type of gene therapy in people diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager to prepare the review. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality/overall survival (whatever data were provided), serious adverse events during treatment, and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were proportion of people with disease progression, adverse events considered non-serious, and proportion of people without improvement in liver function tests. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR), dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR), and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary analyses were based on intention-to-treat and outcome data at the longest follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised clinical trials with 364 participants. The participants had unresectable (i.e. advanced inoperable) hepatocellular carcinoma. We found no trials assessing the effects of gene therapy in people with operable hepatocellular carcinoma. Four trials were conducted in China, one in several countries (from North America, Asia, and Europe), and one in Egypt. The number of participants in the six trials ranged from 10 to 129 (median 47), median age was 55.2 years, and the mean proportion of males was 72.7%. The follow-up duration ranged from six months to five years. As the trials compared different types of gene therapy and had different controls, we could not perform meta-analyses. Five of the six trials administered co-interventions equally to the experimental and control groups. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest in this review. The certainty of evidence was very low in five of the six comparisons and low in the double-dose gene therapy comparison. Below, we reported the results of the primary outcomes only. Pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of Pexa-Vec plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone on overall survival (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.82; 1 trial (censored observation at 20-month follow-up), 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 1 trial at 20 months after treatment, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial reported quality of life narratively as "assessment of quality of life and time to symptomatic progression was confounded by the high patient dropout rate." Adenovirus-thymidine kinase with ganciclovir (ADV-TK/GCV) plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at the two-year follow-up (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.76; 1 trial, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at five-year follow-up (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.73; 1 trial, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Recombinant human adenovirus-p53 with hydroxycamptothecin (rAd-p53/HCT) versus hydroxycamptothecin alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of rAd-p53/HCT versus hydroxycamptothecin alone on the overall survival at 12-month follow-up (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.16 to 60.47; 1 trial, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. rAd-p53/5-Fu (5-fluorouracil) plus transarterial chemoembolisation versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone The trial included 46 participants. We had insufficient data to assess overall survival. The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. E1B-deleted (dl1520) adenovirus versus percutaneous ethanol injection The trial included 10 participants. It did not report data on overall survival, serious adverse events, or health-related quality of life. One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial received a national research grant, one trial by the Pedersen foundation, and three were industry-funded trials. We found five ongoing randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of acupuncture (e.g. needle acupuncture with or without electrical stimulation; laser acupuncture; non-penetrating types of manual or embedded acupressure) on mortality and morbidity in neonates with HIE, compared with 1) no treatment, 2) placebo or sham treatment, 3) any pharmacologic treatment, or 4) different types of acupuncture.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP in March 2023. We conducted a search of the grey literature to identify reports of trials conducted by or referenced in research by CORDIS EU, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and NHSGGC Paediatrics for Health Professionals. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs and cluster-randomized trials. We included studies where participants were term infants (37 weeks or greater) and late preterm infants (34 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation) 10 days of age or less, with evidence of peripartum asphyxia. We included studies on acupuncture (e.g. needle acupuncture with or without electrical stimulation; laser acupuncture; non-penetrating types of manual or embedded acupressure). We included studies where acupuncture was compared with: 1) no treatment; 2) placebo or sham treatment; 3) any pharmacologic treatment; or 4) different types of acupuncture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality at the latest follow-up, major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and aged 3 to 5 years, adverse events until hospital discharge, and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (enrolling 464 infants) that compared acupuncture with no treatment. The studies ranged in size from 60 to 200 infants. Three studies were conducted in China and one in Russia. None of the four studies reported on any of the prespecified outcomes of our review. We did not identify any ongoing studies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of reflective materials in combination with phototherapy compared with phototherapy alone for unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia in neonates.

SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 1 November 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials if the participants, who were term or preterm infants, received phototherapy with curtains made of reflective materials of any type in the treatment arm, and if those in the comparison arm received similar phototherapy without curtains or other intensified phototherapy, such as a double bank of lights.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS: Of 15 studies identified, we included 12 (1288 babies) in the review - 11 comparing phototherapy with reflective materials and phototherapy alone, and one comparing a single phototherapy light bank with reflective materials with double phototherapy. All reflective materials consisted of curtains on three or four sides of the cot and were made of white plastic (five studies), white linen (two studies), or aluminium (three studies); materials were not specified in two studies. Only 11 studies (10 comparing reflective materials versus none and one comparing reflective curtains and a single bank of lights with a double (above and below) phototherapy unit) provided sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. Two excluded studies used the reflective materials in a way that did not meet our inclusion criteria, and we excluded one study because it compared four different phototherapy interventions not including reflective materials. The risk of bias of included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies (281 participants) reported a decline in serum bilirubin (SB) (μmol/L) at four to eight hours (mean difference (MD) -14.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -19.80 to -9.42; I² = 57%; moderate-certainty evidence). Nine studies (893 participants) reported a decline in SB over 24 hours and showed a faster decline in SB in the intervention group, but heterogeneity (I² = 97%) was too substantial to permit a meaningful estimate of the actual effect size (very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by type of reflective material used did not explain the heterogeneity. Exchange transfusion was reported by two studies; both reported none in either group. Four studies (466 participants) reported the mean duration of phototherapy, and in each of these studies, it was reduced in the intervention group but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² = 88%), precluding meaningful meta-analysis of data. The only two studies that reported the mean duration of hospital stay in hours showed a meaningful reduction (MD -41.08, 95% CI -45.92 to -36.25; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported costs of the intervention, parental or medical staff satisfaction, breastfeeding outcomes, or neurodevelopmental follow-up. The only study that compared use of curtains with double phototherapy reported similar results for both groups. Studies that monitored adverse events did not report increased adverse events related to the use of curtains, including acute life-threatening events, but other rarer side effects could not be excluded.