Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: findings and recommendations for editorial teams

Introduction: Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision‐making, policy formulation, and evidence‐based practice. However, despite the existence of well‐established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision‐making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews. Methods: A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form.Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d). Results: One‐third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines,protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist.Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.Conclusion: Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore,there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews

The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19:systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality

A journal club for professional networking and promotion of systematic review methodology

This article describes the launching of a journal club in the EAHIL Special Interest Group (SIG) for Evidence- Based Information. The key aim of the SIG is to bring together and connect all EAHIL members wanting to improve the quality of systematic reviews and other evidence-based products. One project was to set up a reference library with research papers on systematic review methodology and the role of librarians. To help translate research into practice and connect colleagues for discussion, a journal club was launched. Invited guests, such as the authors of a selected paper, not only information specialists, have been a successful feature and future development of the journal club may include inviting other authors such as students, PhD students or clinicians

Nondestructive measurement of fruit and vegetable quality

We review nondestructive techniques for measuring internal and external quality attributes of fruit and vegetables, such as color, size and shape, flavor, texture, and absence of defects. The different techniques are organized according to their physical measurement principle. We first describe each technique and then list some examples. As many of these techniques rely on mathematical models and particular data processing methods, we discuss these where needed. We pay particular attention to techniques that can be implemented online in grading lines

Combined oropharyngeal/nasal swab is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR

BackgroundEarly 2020, a COVID-19 epidemic became a public health emergency of international concern. To address this pandemic broad testing with an easy, comfortable and reliable testing method is of utmost concern. Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab sampling is the reference method though hampered by international supply shortages. A new oropharyngeal/nasal (OP/N) sampling method was investigated using the more readily available throat swab.Results35 patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 by means of either NP or OP/N sampling. The paired swabs were both positive in 31 patients. The one patient who tested negative on both NP and OP/N swab on admission, was ultimately diagnosed on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. A strong correlation was found between the viral RNA loads of the paired swabs (r=0.76; P<0.05). The sensitivity of NP and OP/N analysis in hospitalized patients (n=28) was 89.3% and 92.7% respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates equivalence of NP and OP/N sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by means of rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of both NP and OP/N sampling is very high in hospitalized patients

Update March 2022:management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a european respiratory society living guideline

The ERS COVID-19 guidelines make recommendations for corticosteroids, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, baricitinib, anticoagulation and non-invasive respiratory support for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 https://bit.ly/3QgHH7

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19):A European Respiratory Society living guideline

INTRODUCTION Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require non-invasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. METHODS A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. RESULTS Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (February 20th, 2021) the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for IL-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. CONCLUSION The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available