Additional file 1: Table S1. of Performance of Harmonic devices in surgical oncology: an umbrella review of the evidence

Overview of eligible RCTs not included in systematic reviews. (DOCX 28 kb

Projected the DALY in broad cause groups and total by 2025 (The most probable scenario).

<p>Panel A shows the 2025 BOD in total population and panel B per 100,000 population.</p

Projected the changes in disease burden due to epidemiological components in broad cause groups and total.

<p>Results are classified by Lower-Mid and Upper-Mid income scenarios from 2003 to 2025 in total population (A) and per 100,000 population (B). Vertical bars show the 95% uncertainty interval.</p

Projected proportional contribution of total disease burden by broad cause groups in 2025 (The most probable scenario).

<p>Panel A shows the values in total population and panel B per 100,000 population.</p

Projected the changes in disease burden due to demographic variations in broad cause groups and total across all demographic scenarios from 2003–2025.

<p>Results are classified in total population (A) and per 100,000 population (B). Vertical bars show the 95% uncertainty interval.</p

Projected ratio of the impact of demographic, epidemiological, and total change on disease burden by 2025 to DALY in 2003 classified by broad cause groups (The most probable scenario).

<p>Projected ratio of the impact of demographic, epidemiological, and total change on disease burden by 2025 to DALY in 2003 classified by broad cause groups (The most probable scenario).</p

Additional file 1 of Comparison of safety and effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy regimens among pregnant women living with HIV at preconception or during pregnancy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Supplementary Material 1

Comparative effectiveness of alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background: The spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique that best balance successful extubation with the risk for reintubation is unknown. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative SBT techniques. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2023 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults and children and reported initial SBT success, successful extubation, reintubation (primary outcomes) and mortality (ICU, hospital, most protracted; secondary outcome) rates. Two reviewers screened, reviewed full-texts, and abstracted data. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. Results: We included 40 RCTs (6716 patients). Pressure Support (PS) versus T-piece SBTs was the most common comparison. Initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS [risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05-1.11)], PS/automatic tube compensation (ATC) [1.12 (1.01 -1.25), high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) [1.07 (1.00-1.13) (all moderate certainty), and ATC [RR 1.11, (1.03-1.20); low certainty] SBTs compared to T-piece SBTs. Similarly, initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS, ATC, and PS/ATC SBTs compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) SBTs. Successful extubation rates were increased with PS [RR 1.06, (1.03-1.09); high certainty], ATC [RR 1.13, (1.05-1.21); moderate certainty], and HFNC [RR 1.06, (1.02-1.11); high certainty] SBTs, compared to T-piece SBTs. There was little to no difference in reintubation rates with PS (vs. T-piece) SBTs [RR 1.05, (0.91-1.21); low certainty], but increased reintubation rates with PS [RR 2.84, (1.61-5.03); moderate certainty] and ATC [RR 2.95 (1.57-5.56); moderate certainty] SBTs compared to HFNC SBTs. Conclusions: SBTs conducted with pressure augmentation (PS, ATC, PS/ATC) versus without (T-piece, CPAP) increased initial successful SBT and successful extubation rates. Although SBTs conducted with PS or ATC versus HFNC increased reintubation rates, this was not the case for PS versus T-piece SBTs.</div

Interventional treatments for chronic,axial or radicular, non-cancer, spinal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

Introduction Chronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates. Ethics and dissemination No research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence