OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews.
METHODS: We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management.
RESULTS: Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year).
CONCLUSIONS: The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline & CINAHL, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), ProQuest Theses & Dissertations Databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception till March 15, 2021. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in respiratory illness; decrease in frequency, symptoms, and duration. Random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used Cochrane's RoB-2 to appraise the risk of bias of included RCTs.
RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were eligible for this review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, two studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly reduced odds of developing respiratory infections with the use of Lf relative to the control (pooled odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.74, n = 1,194), with sufficient evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Lf shows promising efficacy in reducing the risk of RTIs. Current evidence also favours Lf fortification of infant formula. Lf may also have a beneficial role in managing symptoms and recovery of patients suffering from RTIs and may have potential for use as an adjunct in COVID-19, however this warrants further evidence from a large well-designed RCT.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included all prospective controlled studies (randomised and non-randomised) comparing rooming-in to nursery care that reported full or partial breastfeeding up to six months. We used the 2016 search results of the Cochrane review and updated the search to August 2018 using OVID MEDLINE. Duplicate data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed. Meta-analyses were performed using REVMAN 5. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence. Seven studies were included, five had 24-hour-per-day, one daytime only and one 8-hours-per-day rooming-in. Four studies had at least one additional co-intervention: Differences in delivery room management, and educational packages. All studies contributing to meta-analyses had 24-hour rooming-in. There was no difference in the proportion of infants on full breastfeeding at 3 months (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.54; very-low-quality evidence), 4 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; very-low-quality evidence) and 6 months (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.58; low-quality evidence). The proportion of infants on partial breastfeeding at 3-4 months was higher with rooming-in (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.61; very-low-quality evidence).
CONCLUSION: The addition of non-randomised prospective controlled studies to existing evidence did not add further information on the effects of rooming-in on breastfeeding duration but resulted in lower quality of evidence. Uncertainty about the effects of rooming-in on breastfeeding duration remains.
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).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite steady improvement in the overall quality of neonatal RCTs over the last 6 decades, blinding remained unsatisfactory in the majority of the trials.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.
RESULTS: Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.
CONCLUSION: In general, the quality of currently available evidence for the effectiveness of CQ/HCQ in patients with COVID-19 is suboptimal. The importance of a properly designed and reported clinical trial cannot be overemphasized amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and its dismissal could lead to poorer clinical and policy decisions, resulting in wastage of already stretched invaluable health care resources.
Objective: This paper illustrates a significant perspective of some of the challenges faced while conducting a randomized controlled trial exploring the impact of a multi-component intervention that included strategy- and process-based prospective memory (PM) training among Malaysian older adults.
Methods: The current study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and therefore the challenges were presented in accordance with the CONSORT statement style.
Results: A discussion on how these issues were addressed is provided.
Conclusion: Some suggestions were presented to help researchers plan and create interventions for similar studies and to support a practical method of addressing all related challenges.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The systematic review, will be conducted by extensively searching different databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley and ProQuest to identify randomised controlled trials (with no time frame) which relate to the administration of probiotics to patients with colorectal cancer. The search strategy will include words like colorectal cancer, probiotics, Bifidobacterium, clinical trials etc. A systematic search of databases was performed between 17 and 20 January 2020. Two reviewers will independently review the studies and also search the reference lists of the eligible studies to obtain more references. Data will be extracted from the eligible studies using standardised data extraction form. After assessing the risk of bias, qualitative analysis will be used to synthesise the systematic review.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a protocol for a systematic review; therefore, it doesn't require any ethics approval. We intend to disseminate the protocol in a peer reviewed journal.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize and synthesize evidence on the utility and methodological quality of cognitive-based interventions on cognitive performance and associated secondary outcomes among healthy older adults in Asia, as well as novel, culture-specific components of cognitive interventions across the region.
DATA SOURCES: The PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases were searched through May 2020.
ELIGIBILITY: Studies including individuals aged 60 years and above, who had no previous history of physical and/or mental illness. Few restrictions placed on intervention design, duration and mode of delivery, provided that participants were randomized to study conditions, and intervention included components addressing at least one cognitive domain.
RESULTS: A total of 17 studies from six countries met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Evidence from those studies indicated that cognitive interventions may be most effective when the design and aims were directed towards improvement in specific cognitive domains, but evidence regarding long-term effectiveness in preventing progression to clinical-level cognitive deficits is still unclear. Several studies highlighted culture-specific activities as components of their interventions, though these will need to be further outlined and standardized clearly in future research.
METHODS: We assessed the use of composite outcomes in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published till November 2017. Two authors reviewed the components of the composite outcomes to compare their patient importance and computed the ratios of effect sizes and event rates between the components, with an a priori threshold of 1.5, indicating a substantial difference. Descriptive statistics were presented.
RESULTS: We extracted 7,766 outcomes in 2,134 RCTs in 312 systematic reviews. Among them, 55 composite outcomes (0.7%) were identified in 46 RCTs. The vast majority (92.7%) of composite outcomes had 2 components, with death being the most common component (included 51 times [92.7%]). The components in nearly three-quarters of the composite outcomes (n = 40 [72.7%]) had different patient importance, while the effect sizes and event rates differed substantially between the components in 27 (49.1%) and 35 (63.6%) outcomes, respectively, with up to 43-fold difference in the event rates observed.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of composite outcomes in neonatal RCTs had different patient importance with contrasting effect sizes and event rates between the components. In patient communication, clinicians should highlight individual components, rather than the composites, with explanation on the relationship between the components, to avoid misleading impression on the effect of the intervention. Future trials should report the estimates of all individual components alongside the composite outcomes presented.