Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviewers seek to comprehensively search for relevant studies and summarize these to present the most valid estimate of intervention effectiveness. The more resources searched, the higher the yield, and thus time and costs required to conduct a systematic review. While there is an abundance of evidence to suggest how extensive a search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be, it is neither conclusive nor consistent. This systematic review was conducted in order to assess the value of different resources to identify trials for inclusion in systematic reviews. METHODS: Seven electronic databases, four journals and Cochrane Colloquia were searched. Key authors were contacted and references of relevant articles screened. Included studies compared two or more sources to find RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). A checklist was developed and applied to assess quality of reporting. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Medians and ranges for precision and recall were calculated; results were grouped by comparison. Meta-analysis was not performed due to large heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted for: search strategy (Cochrane, Simple, Complex, Index), expertise of the searcher (Cochrane, librarian, non-librarian), and study design (RCT and CCT). RESULTS: Sixty-four studies representing 13 electronic databases met inclusion criteria. The most common comparisons were MEDLINE vs. handsearching (n = 23), MEDLINE vs. MEDLINE+handsearching (n = 13), and MEDLINE vs. reference standard (n = 13). Quality was low, particularly for the reporting of study selection methodology. Overall, recall and precision varied substantially by comparison and ranged from 0 to 100% and 0 to 99%, respectively. The trial registries performed the best with median recall of 89% (range 84, 95) and median precision of 96.5% (96, 97), although these results are based on a small number of studies. Inadequate or inappropriate indexing was the reason most cited for missing studies. Complex and Cochrane search strategies (SS) performed better than Simple SS. CONCLUSION: Multiple-source comprehensive searches are necessary to identify all RCTs for a systematic review, although indexing needs to be improved. Although trial registries demonstrated the highest recall and precision, the Cochrane SS or a Complex SS in consultation with a librarian are recommended. Continued efforts to develop CENTRAL should be supported

Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide – the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Randomized trials are essential in assessing the effects of healthcare interventions and are a key component in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Searching for reports of randomized trials in databases is problematic due to the absence of appropriate indexing terms until the 1990s and inconsistent application of these indexing terms thereafter.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objectives of this study are to devise a search strategy for identifying reports of randomized trials in EMBASE which are not already indexed as trials in MEDLINE and to make these reports easily accessible by including them in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in <it>The Cochrane Library</it>, with the permission of Elsevier, the publishers of EMBASE.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A highly sensitive search strategy was designed for EMBASE based on free-text and thesaurus terms which occurred frequently in the titles, abstracts, EMTREE terms (or some combination of these) of reports of trials indexed in EMBASE. This search strategy was run against EMBASE from 1980 to 2005 (1974 to 2005 for four of the terms) and records retrieved by the search, which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, were downloaded from EMBASE, printed and read. An analysis of the language of publication was conducted for the reports of trials published in 2005 (the most recent year completed at the time of this study).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two search terms were used (including nine which were later rejected due to poor cumulative precision). More than a third of a million records were downloaded and scanned and approximately 80,000 reports of trials were identified which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE. These are now easily identifiable in CENTRAL, in <it>The Cochrane Library</it>. Cumulative sensitivity ranged from 0.1% to 60% and cumulative precision ranged from 8% to 61%. The truncated term 'random$' identified 60% of the total number of reports of trials but only 35% of the more than 130,000 records retrieved by this term were reports of trials. The language analysis for the sample year 2005 indicated that of the 18,427 reports indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, 959 (5%) were in languages other than English. The EMBASE search identified an additional 658 reports in languages other than English, of which the highest number were in Chinese (320).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of the search to date have greatly increased access to reports of trials in EMBASE, especially in some languages other than English. The search strategy used was subjectively derived from a small 'gold standard' set of test records and was not validated in an independent test set. We intend to design an objectively-derived validated search strategy using logistic regression based on the frequency of occurrence of terms in the approximately 80,000 reports of randomized trials identified compared with the frequency of these terms across the entire EMBASE database.</p

Variation in the COVID-19 infection-fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: a systematic analysis

Background The infection-fatality ratio (IFR) is a metric that quantifies the likelihood of an individual dying once infected with a pathogen. Understanding the determinants of IFR variation for COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has direct implications for mitigation efforts with respect to clinical practice, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and the prioritisation of risk groups for targeted vaccine delivery. The IFR is also a crucial parameter in COVID-19 dynamic transmission models, providing a way to convert a population's mortality rate into an estimate of infections.Methods We estimated age-specific and all-age IFR by matching seroprevalence surveys to total COVID-19 mortality rates in a population. The term total COVID-19 mortality refers to an estimate of the total number of deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. After applying exclusion criteria to 5131 seroprevalence surveys, the IFR analyses were informed by 2073 all-age surveys and 718 age-specific surveys (3012 age-specific observations). When seroprevalence was reported by age group, we split total COVID-19 mortality into corresponding age groups using a Bayesian hierarchical model to characterise the non-linear age pattern of reported deaths for a given location. To remove the impact of vaccines on the estimated IFR age pattern, we excluded age-specific observations of seroprevalence and deaths that occurred after vaccines were introduced in a location. We estimated age-specific IFR with a non-linear meta-regression and used the resulting age pattern to standardise all-age IFR observations to the global age distribution. All IFR observations were adjusted for baseline and waning antibody-test sensitivity. We then modelled age-standardised IFR as a function of time, geography, and an ensemble of 100 of the top-performing covariate sets. The covariates included seven clinical predictors (eg, age-standardised obesity prevalence) and two measures of health system performance. Final estimates for 190 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in 11 countries and territories, were obtained by predicting age-standardised IFR conditional on covariates and reversing the age standardisation.Findings We report IFR estimates for April 15, 2020, to January 1, 2021, the period before the introduction of vaccines and widespread evolution of variants. We found substantial heterogeneity in the IFR by age, location, and time. Age-specific IFR estimates form a J shape, with the lowest IFR occurring at age 7 years (0-0023%, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 0-0015-0-0039) and increasing exponentially through ages 30 years (0-0573%, 0-0418-0-0870), 60 years (1-0035%, 0-7002-1-5727), and 90 years (20-3292%, 14-6888-28-9754). The countries with the highest IFR on July 15, 2020, were Portugal (2-085%, 0-946-4-395), Monaco (1-778%, 1-265-2-915), Japan (1-750%, 1-302-2-690), Spain (1-710%, 0-991-2-718), and Greece (1-637%, 1-155-2-678). All-age IFR varied by a factor of more than 30 among 190 countries and territories.After age standardisation, the countries with the highest IFR on July 15, 2020, were Peru (0-911%, 0-636-1-538), Portugal (0-850%, 0-386-1-793), Oman (0-762%, 0-381-1-399), Spain (0-751%, 0-435-1-193), and Mexico (0-717%, 0-426-1-404). Subnational locations with high IFRs also included hotspots in the UK and southern and eastern states of the USA. Sub-Saharan African countries and Asian countries generally had the lowest all-age and age-standardised IFRs. Population age structure accounted for 74% of logit-scale variation in IFRs estimated for 39 in-sample countries on July 15, 2020. A post-hoc analysis showed that high rates of transmission in the care home population might account for higher IFRs in some locations. Among all countries and territories, we found that the median IFR decreased from 0-466% (interquartile range 0-223-0-840) to 0-314% (0-143-0-551) between April 15, 2020, and Jan 1, 2021.Interpretation Estimating the IFR for global populations helps to identify relative vulnerabilities to COVID-19. Information about how IFR varies by age, time, and location informs clinical practice and non-pharmaceutical interventions like physical distancing measures, and underpins vaccine risk stratification. IFR and mortality risk form a J shape with respect to age, which previous research, such as that by Glynn and Moss in 2020, has identified to be a common pattern among infectious diseases. Understanding the experience of a population with COVID-19 mortality requires consideration for local factors; IFRs varied by a factor of more than 30 among 190 countries and territories in this analysis. In particular, the presence of elevated age-standardised IFRs in countries with well resourced health-care systems indicates that factors beyond health-care capacity are important. Potential extenuating circumstances include outbreaks among care home residents, variable burdens of severe cases, and the population prevalence of comorbid conditions that increase the severity of COVID-19 disease. During the pre-vaccine period, the estimated 33% decrease in median IFR over 8 months suggests that treatment for COVID-19 has improved over time. Estimating IFR for the pre-vaccine era provides an important baseline for describing the progression of COVID-19 mortality patterns.Funding Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): properties and frontier of current knowledge

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is well known internationally and widely used for scoring the severity of illness in psychiatry. Problems with GAF show a need for its further development (for example validity and reliability problems). The aim of the present study was to identify gaps in current knowledge about properties of GAF that are of interest for further development. Properties of GAF are defined as characteristic traits or attributes that serve to define GAF (or may have a role to define a future updated GAF). METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted. RESULTS: A number of gaps in knowledge about the properties of GAF were identified: for example, the current GAF has a continuous scale, but is a continuous or categorical scale better? Scoring is not performed by setting a mark directly on a visual scale, but could this improve scoring? Would new anchor points, including key words and examples, improve GAF (anchor points for symptoms, functioning, positive mental health, prognosis, improvement of generic properties, exclusion criteria for scoring in 10-point intervals, and anchor points at the endpoints of the scale)? Is a change in the number of anchor points and their distribution over the total scale important? Could better instructions for scoring within 10-point intervals improve scoring? Internationally, both single and dual scales for GAF are used, but what is the advantage of having separate symptom and functioning scales? Symptom (GAF-S) and functioning (GAF-F) scales should score different dimensions and still be correlated, but what is the best combination of definitions for GAF-S and GAF-F? For GAF with more than two scales there is limited empirical testing, but what is gained or lost by using more than two scales? CONCLUSIONS: In the history of GAF, its basic properties have undergone limited changes. Problems with GAF may, in part, be due to lack of a research programme testing the effects of different changes in basic properties. Given the widespread use, research-based development of GAF has not been especially strong. Further research could improve GAF

Polo kinase recruitment via the constitutive centromere-associated network at the kinetochore elevates centromeric RNA

The kinetochore, a multi-protein complex assembled on centromeres, is essential to segregate chromosomes during cell division. Deficiencies in kinetochore function can lead to chromosomal instability and aneuploidy-a hallmark of cancer cells. Kinetochore function is controlled by recruitment of regulatory proteins, many of which have been documented, however their function often remains uncharacterized and many are yet to be identified. To identify candidates of kinetochore regulation we used a proteome-wide protein association strategy in budding yeast and detected many proteins that are involved in post-translational modifications such as kinases, phosphatases and histone modifiers. We focused on the Polo-like kinase, Cdc5, and interrogated which cellular components were sensitive to constitutive Cdc5 localization. The kinetochore is particularly sensitive to constitutive Cdc5 kinase activity. Targeting Cdc5 to different kinetochore subcomplexes produced diverse phenotypes, consistent with multiple distinct functions at the kinetochore. We show that targeting Cdc5 to the inner kinetochore, the constitutive centromere-associated network (CCAN), increases the levels of centromeric RNA via an SPT4 dependent mechanism

Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950-2019 : a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Accurate and up-to-date assessment of demographic metrics is crucial for understanding a wide range of social, economic, and public health issues that affect populations worldwide. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 produced updated and comprehensive demographic assessments of the key indicators of fertility, mortality, migration, and population for 204 countries and territories and selected subnational locations from 1950 to 2019. Methods 8078 country-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 938 surveys, 349 censuses, and 238 other sources were identified and used to estimate age-specific fertility. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate age-specific fertility rates for 5-year age groups between ages 15 and 49 years. With extensions to age groups 10-14 and 50-54 years, the total fertility rate (TFR) was then aggregated using the estimated age-specific fertility between ages 10 and 54 years. 7417 sources were used for under-5 mortality estimation and 7355 for adult mortality. ST-GPR was used to synthesise data sources after correction for known biases. Adult mortality was measured as the probability of death between ages 15 and 60 years based on vital registration, sample registration, and sibling histories, and was also estimated using ST-GPR. HIV-free life tables were then estimated using estimates of under-5 and adult mortality rates using a relational model life table system created for GBD, which closely tracks observed age-specific mortality rates from complete vital registration when available. Independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated by an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys and antenatal clinic serosurveillance and other sources were incorporated into the estimates in countries with large epidemics. Annual and single-year age estimates of net migration and population for each country and territory were generated using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model that analysed estimated age-specific fertility and mortality rates along with 1250 censuses and 747 population registry years. We classified location-years into seven categories on the basis of the natural rate of increase in population (calculated by subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate) and the net migration rate. We computed healthy life expectancy (HALE) using years lived with disability (YLDs) per capita, life tables, and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty was propagated throughout the demographic estimation process, including fertility, mortality, and population, with 1000 draw-level estimates produced for each metric. Findings The global TFR decreased from 2.72 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2.66-2.79) in 2000 to 2.31 (2.17-2.46) in 2019. Global annual livebirths increased from 134.5 million (131.5-137.8) in 2000 to a peak of 139.6 million (133.0-146.9) in 2016. Global livebirths then declined to 135.3 million (127.2-144.1) in 2019. Of the 204 countries and territories included in this study, in 2019, 102 had a TFR lower than 2.1, which is considered a good approximation of replacement-level fertility. All countries in sub-Saharan Africa had TFRs above replacement level in 2019 and accounted for 27.1% (95% UI 26.4-27.8) of global livebirths. Global life expectancy at birth increased from 67.2 years (95% UI 66.8-67.6) in 2000 to 73.5 years (72.8-74.3) in 2019. The total number of deaths increased from 50.7 million (49.5-51.9) in 2000 to 56.5 million (53.7-59.2) in 2019. Under-5 deaths declined from 9.6 million (9.1-10.3) in 2000 to 5.0 million (4.3-6.0) in 2019. Global population increased by 25.7%, from 6.2 billion (6.0-6.3) in 2000 to 7.7 billion (7.5-8.0) in 2019. In 2019, 34 countries had negative natural rates of increase; in 17 of these, the population declined because immigration was not sufficient to counteract the negative rate of decline. Globally, HALE increased from 58.6 years (56.1-60.8) in 2000 to 63.5 years (60.8-66.1) in 2019. HALE increased in 202 of 204 countries and territories between 2000 and 2019. Interpretation Over the past 20 years, fertility rates have been dropping steadily and life expectancy has been increasing, with few exceptions. Much of this change follows historical patterns linking social and economic determinants, such as those captured by the GBD Socio-demographic Index, with demographic outcomes. More recently, several countries have experienced a combination of low fertility and stagnating improvement in mortality rates, pushing more populations into the late stages of the demographic transition. Tracking demographic change and the emergence of new patterns will be essential for global health monitoring. Copyright (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe