Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews

Preferences of states of health and measurements of utility

RESUMEN: La medición de los valores del estado de salud, preferencias y utilidad calcula el valor o la conveniencia de un estado de salud contra un instrumento externo; son medidas genéricas de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (CVRS) y resumen el valor de esta en un solo número entre 0 (cero) y 1 (uno). Las medidas de preferencias de estados de salud y de utilidad difieren de las medidas generales y específicas obtenidas mediante cuestionarios de CVRS en áreas importantes. Primero, calculan las predilecciones de los individuos por alternativas. Segundo, proveen un resultado completo de la CVRS. Tercero, ofrecen una unidad común de análisis. Existen dos métodos para la medición de las utilidades, uno directo y otro indirecto, que se conocen también como utilidades multiatributo o sistemas de clasificación de estados de salud. El proceso directo de medición consiste en un agregado de descripciones que un entrevistador presenta a los encuestados. Para las mediciones indirectas se aplican solamente cuestionarios. El objetivo principal de este artículo es describir los principales métodos de valoración de utilidades, con el fin de dar a conocer los desenlaces que actualmente se utilizan tanto en estudios de CVRS como en evaluaciones económicas.ABSTRACT: Measurements of health states values, preferences and utility estimate the degree or convenience of a health state against an external instrument. They are generic measurements of health-related quality of life (HRQL), that summarize its value in one single number between 0 (zero) and 1 (one). Measurements of preferences of health states and of utility differ from general and specific measurements obtained by means of questionnaires of HRQL in three important areas: 1. They estimate individual preferences by alternatives. 2. They provide a comprehensive result of HRQL. 3. They offer a common unit of analysis. Two methods for measuring utility are available: direct and indirect. They are also known as multi-attribute utilities or classification systems for health states. The direct measurement process consists of an aggregate of descriptions that the interviewer presents to the surveyed individuals. For indirect measurements only questionnaires are applied. This article describes the main methods for evaluation of utilities in order to make known the outcomes presently used in both HRQL studies and economic evaluations

World Allergy Organization-McMaster University Guidelines for Allergic Disease Prevention (GLAD-P): Probiotics

Background: Prevalence of allergic diseases in infants, whose parents and siblings do not have allergy, is approximately 10% and reaches 20–30% in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Intestinal microbiota may modulate immunologic and inflammatory systemic responses and, thus, influence development of sensitization and allergy. Probiotics have been reported to modulate immune responses and their supplementation has been proposed as a preventive intervention. Objective: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) convened a guideline panel to develop evidence-based recommendations about the use of probiotics in the prevention of allergy. Methods: We identified the most relevant clinical questions and performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of probiotics for the prevention of allergy. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. We searched for and reviewed the evidence about health effects, patient values and preferences, and resource use (up to November 2014). We followed the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations. Results: Currently available evidence does not indicate that probiotic supplementation reduces the risk of developing allergy in children. However, considering all critical outcomes in this context, the WAO guideline panel determined that there is a likely net benefit from using probiotics resulting primarily from prevention of eczema. The WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using probiotics in pregnant women at high risk for having an allergic child; b) using probiotics in women who breastfeed infants at high risk of developing allergy; and c) using probiotics in infants at high risk of developing allergy. All recommendations are conditional and supported by very low quality evidence. Conclusions: WAO recommendations about probiotic supplementation for prevention of allergy are intended to support parents, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions whether to use probiotics in pregnancy and during breastfeeding, and whether to give them to infants

World Allergy Organization-McMaster University Guidelines for Allergic Disease Prevention (GLAD-P): Vitamin D

Background: The prevalence of allergic diseases is approximately 10 % in infants whose parents and siblings do not have allergic diseases and 20–30 % in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Vitamin D is involved in the regulation of the immune system and it may play a role in the development, severity and course of asthma and other allergic diseases. Objective: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) convened a guideline panel to develop evidence-based recommendations addressing the use of vitamin D in primary prevention of allergic diseases. Methods: Our WAO guideline panel identified the most relevant clinical questions and performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies (NRS), specifically cohort and case-control studies, of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of allergic diseases. We also reviewed the evidence about values and preferences, and resource requirements (up to January 2015, with an update on January 30, 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. Results: Having reviewed the currently available evidence, the WAO guideline panel found no support for the hypothesis that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of developing allergic diseases in children. The WAO guideline panel suggest not using vitamin D in pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, or healthy term infants as a means of preventing the development of allergic diseases. This recommendation does not apply to those mothers and infants who have other indications for prophylactic or therapeutic use of vitamin D. The panel’s recommendations are conditional and supported by very low certainty evidence. Conclusions: WAO recommendations about vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of allergic diseases support parents, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions whether or not to use vitamin D in preventing allergic diseases in healthy, term infants

GRADE guidelines : 19. assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-risk of bias and indirectness

Q1Q194-104Objectives The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes. Study Design and Setting We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback. Results This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at “high certainty”; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose subdomains of risk of bias as selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness. Conclusion This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes

Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach

Q2Q1Artículo de investigación1-10Background: There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development. Methods: In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives. Results: We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences. Conclusions: Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Guidelines - 2016 Revision

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. METHODS: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment

Preferencias de estados de salud y medidas de utilidad = Preferences of states of health and measurements of utility

La medición de los valores del estado de salud, preferencias y utilidad calcula el valor o la conveniencia de un estado de salud contra un instrumento externo; son medidas genéricas de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (CVRS) y resumen el valor de esta en un solo número entre 0 (cero) y 1 (uno). Las medidas de preferencias de estados de salud y de utilidad difieren de las medidas generales y específicas obtenidas mediante cuestionarios de CVRS en áreas importantes. Primero, calculan las predilecciones de los individuos por alternativas. Segundo, proveen un resultado completo de la CVRS. Tercero, ofrecen una unidad común de análisis. Existen dos métodos para la medición de las utilidades, uno directo y otro indirecto, que se conocen también como utilidades multiatributo o sistemas de clasificación de estados de salud. El proceso directo de medición consiste en un agregado de descripciones que un entrevistador presenta a los encuestados. Para las mediciones indirectas se aplican solamente cuestionarios. El objetivo principal de este artículo es describir los principales métodos de valoración de utilidades, con el fin de dar a conocer los desenlaces que actualmente se utilizan tanto en estudios de CVRS como en evaluaciones económicas

DataSheet4_Community-Based Knowledge Translation Strategies for Maternal, Neonatal, and Perinatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Data.docx

Objective: To identify and assess the effect of community-based Knowledge Translation Strategies (KTS) on maternal, neonatal, and perinatal outcomes.Methods: We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycInfo, LILACS, Wholis, Web of Science, ERIC, Jstor, and Epistemonikos. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of the studies using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.Results: We identified seven quantitative and seven qualitative studies. Quantitative findings suggest that there is a possible effect on reducing maternal mortality (RR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48–0.87; moderate evidence certainty); neonatal mortality (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.70–0.90; moderate evidence certainty); and perinatal mortality (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.77–0.91; moderate evidence certainty) in women exposed to KTS compared to those who received conventional interventions or no intervention at all. Analysis of qualitative studies identified elements that allowed to generate benefit effects in improving maternal, neonatal, and perinatal outcomes.Conclusion: The KTS in maternal, neonatal, and perinatal outcomes might encourage the autonomy of communities despite that the certainty of evidence was moderate.</p

Biologicals in atopic disease in pregnancy: an EAACI position paper

Abstract Biologicals have transformed the management of severe disease phenotypes in asthma, atopic dermatitis, and chronic spontaneous urticaria. As a result, the number of approved biologicals for the treatment of atopic diseases is continuously increasing. Although atopic diseases are among the most common diseases in the reproductive age, investigations, and information on half-life, pharmacokinetics defining the neonatal Fc receptors (FcRn) and most important safety of biologicals in pregnancy are lacking. Given the complex sequence of immunological events that regulate conception, fetal development, and the intrauterine and postnatal maturation of the immune system, this information is of utmost importance. We conducted a systematic review on biologicals in pregnancy for indications of atopic diseases. Evidence in this field is scare and mainly reserved to reports on the usage of omalizumab. This lack of evidence demands the establishment of a multidisciplinary approach for the management of pregnant women who receive biologicals and multicenter registries for long-term follow-up, drug trial designs suitable for women in the reproductive age, and better experimental models that represent the human situation. Due to the very long half-life of biologicals, pre-conception counseling, and health care provider education is crucial to offer the best care for mother and fetus. This position paper integrates available data on safety of biologicals during pregnancy in atopic diseases via a systematic review with a detailed review on immunological considerations how inhibition of different pathways may impact pregnancy.Peer reviewe