PRISMA flowchart of identification and selection of studies.

<p>PRISMA flowchart of identification and selection of studies.</p

Characteristics of included studies.

<p>ALAT: alanine aminotransferase; EIA: enzyme immunoassay; ELISA: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; HBc: hepatitis B core antigen; HBs: hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV: hepatitis B virus; HCV: hepatitis C virus; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; IDU: intravenous drug use; MSM: men who have sex with men; RIBA: recombinant immunoblot assay; RNA: ribonucleic acid; RIP: radioimmunoprecipitation; (RT)-PCR: (reverse transcriptase) polymerase chain reaction; TTI: transfusion transmissible infections</p><p>Characteristics of included studies.</p

Quality assessment and summary of findings according to the GRADE approach.

<p>aOR: adjusted odds ratio; aRR: adjusted risk ratio; HBV: hepatitis B virus; HCV: hepatitis C virus; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; MSM: men who have sex with men; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio; TTI: transfusion transmissible infections</p><p>1 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (random donors are a mix of male and female, while all homosexuals included are male); control for confounding unclear (not mentioned in article); other limitations: homosexuals were solicited via the press, other donors were random samples)</p><p>2 Random samples with young, minority and first-time donor oversampled; possible recall bias; the possible difference between respondents and non-respondents is not known</p><p>3 Control for confounding unclear (not mentioned in the article); no control group was included (e. g. states where no change in deferral policy was implemented): several blood safety-related interventions were implemented during the 10-year period covered by this study; there is a potential decline in the number of HIV-positive donors presenting to donate because of earlier HIV diagnosis in more recent times; before the implementation of the new policy, different states/territories had different policies (permanent deferral or 5 year deferral since last MSM contact) and the implementation of the new policy was not established at the same moment in each state/territory.</p><p>4 Control for confounding unclear (not mentioned in the article); no control group was included (e. g. states where no change in deferral policy was implemented)</p><p>5 First-time donations by infected persons (53.3%) were 1.7-fold higher than those among the control group (31.1%), which suggests that test-seeking donations may have been numerous.</p><p>6 Control for confounding unclear (not clear for which factors adjustment was made); questionnaire used to obtain information</p><p>7 Methods for exposure and outcome variables unclear (risk factors not determined in the same way for all cases); not controlled for confounding ((not clear if individuals with MSM as risk factor also have other risk factors)</p><p>8 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (all subjects had positive anti-HCV findings by enzyme immunoassay); not controlled for confounding</p><p>9 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (cases and controls not matched); not controlled for confounding (individuals with MSM as risk factor also have other risk factors); 5 out of 7 cases having homosexual contact also admitted personal drug use; questionnaire used</p><p>10 Control for confounding unclear (only adjusted for intravenous drug use, but unclear if this is sufficient)</p><p>11 Control for confounding unclear (only adjusted for intravenous drug use, but unclear if this is sufficient); questionnaire used to obtain information</p><p>12 Control for confounding unclear (only donors with no histories of transfusion or intravenous drug abuse, but unclear if this is sufficient); interview used to obtain information</p><p>13 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (cases and controls not matched; all subjects positive by ELISA); unclear if cases and controls received same questionnaire; control for confounding unclear (donors do not have former intravenous drug addiction, but unclear if this is sufficient); questionnaire used to obtain information</p><p>14 Inappropiate eligibility criteria (cases and controls not matched; all subjects positive by ELISA); not controlled for confounding (individuals with MSM as risk factor can also have other risk factors); interview used to obtain information</p><p>15 Low number of events</p><p>16 Calculations made by the reviewer(s) using Review Manager software</p><p>17 Not able to calculate confidence interval (data lacking)</p><p>18 Raw data calculated based on total number of participants and percentages</p><p>19 Raw data not available</p><p>20 Confidence interval of adjusted odds ratio not available, only p-value</p><p>Quality assessment and summary of findings according to the GRADE approach.</p

A Systematic Literature Search on Psychological First Aid: Lack of Evidence to Develop Guidelines

<div><p>Background</p><p>Providing psychological first aid (PFA) is generally considered to be an important element in preliminary care of disaster victims. Using the best available scientific basis for courses and educational materials, the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders wants to ensure that its volunteers are trained in the best way possible.</p><p>Objective</p><p>To identify effective PFA practices, by systematically reviewing the evidence in existing guidelines, systematic reviews and individual studies.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Systematic literature searches in five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, PILOTS and G-I-N) were conducted from inception to July 2013.</p><p>Results</p><p>Five practice guidelines were included which were found to vary in the development process (AGREE II score 20–53%) and evidence base used. None of them provides solid evidence concerning the effectiveness of PFA practices. Additionally, two systematic reviews of PFA were found, both noting a lack of studies on PFA. A complementary search for individual studies, using a more sensitive search strategy, identified 11 237 references of which 102 were included for further full-text examination, none of which ultimately provides solid evidence concerning the effectiveness of PFA practices.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The scientific literature on psychological first aid available to date, does not provide any evidence about the effectiveness of PFA interventions. Currently it is impossible to make evidence-based guidelines about which practices in psychosocial support are most effective to help disaster and trauma victims.</p></div

Overview of existing systematic reviews.

<p>*after removal of duplicates.</p><p>Overview of existing systematic reviews.</p

Overview of existing guidelines.

<p>*average of the scores of 2 independent reviewers, rounded to nearest whole number. NA: not applicable.</p><p>Overview of existing guidelines.</p

Flow diagram for selecting studies for review.

<p>Flow diagram for selecting studies for review.</p

Mapping of peptide 5-2-D3.

<p>Peptide 5-2-D3 could be mapped (orange) with AA E 168|N 164|D 152|G 153|T 150|K 146|L 144|A 141 on the three-dimensional model of a VSG LiTat 1.5 N-terminal domain monomer by means of 3DEX and Chimera.</p

Alignment on VSG LiTat 1.5 of peptides selected with anti-VSG LiTat 1.5 antibody fractions.

<p>Homologous sequences between phage displayed peptides and/or the protein sequence of VSG LiTat 1.5 are indicated in grey. Amino acids that are identical to those of the VSG protein sequence are in bold and grey. All peptide sequences include the GGGS-spacer at the C-terminus. Maximum % identity: percentage identity of the peptide sequence with a corresponding stretch of sixteen AA within the protein sequence of VSG LiTat 1.5. Synth peptide: name of the synthesised peptide.</p

Peptide sequences of phage clones selected with human anti-VSG LiTat 1.3 antibodies.

<p>3-3-H3(1) and 3-3-H3(2) are two different phage clones, na: not applicable, SD: standard deviation,</p>*<p>not withheld: similar to 3-2-G5 & 3-2-G10.</p><p>The phage clones were selected after two or three positive (pos) selections. The peptide sequences that were expressed by these phage clones are given in column three. The average OD_c in sandwich ELISA, using nine purified antibody fractions as capture antibody, is shown in column four. If the peptide sequence was synthesised, the name of the biotinylated peptide is given in column five.</p