Purpose To present an overview of the existing evidence on prognostic factors of (recurrent) sickness absence (SA) and return to work (RTW) among workers with a common mental disorder (CMD). This scoping review provides information about determinants for SA and RTW, which could be used to develop better interventions aimed at the prevention of SA and promotion of RTW among workers with a CMD. Methods Relevant articles were identified in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and SINGLE up to October 2016. In order to be included, studies should provide insight into prognostic factors of SA or RTW of workers with a CMD. We classified all factors according to the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Results Our searches identified 2447 possible relevant articles, of which 71 were included for data extraction. There is consistent evidence in ≥3 studies that previous episodes of CMD, higher symptom severity, previous absenteeism, co-morbidity, high job demands, low job control, high job strain, female gender, lower educational level, smoking behavior, and low perceived general health are predictors of SA in people with CMDs. Earlier RTW is consistently predicted by lower symptom severity, having no previous absenteeism, younger age, and positive expectations concerning sick-leave duration or RTW. Conclusions The amount of research on determinants for SA and RTW in workers with CMD has increased dramatically in recent years, although most studies are from the Netherlands and Scandinavia. There are some research gaps identified in this scoping review that need further attention in primary and secondary studies. Based on the summary of the evidence, we provide guidance for policy, practice and research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10926-017-9730-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundEvidence syntheses, and in particular systematic reviews (SRs), have become one of the cornerstones of evidence-based health care. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool has become the most widely used tool for investigating the methodological quality of SRs and is currently undergoing revision. The objective of this paper is to present insights, challenges and potential solutions from the point of view of a group of assessors, while referring to earlier methodological discussions and debates with respect to AMSTAR.DiscussionOne major drawback of AMSTAR is that it relies heavily on reporting quality rather than on methodological quality. This can be found in several items. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that there are now new methods and procedures that did not exist when AMSTAR was developed. For example, the note to item 1 should now refer to the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Furthermore, item 3 should consider the definition of hand-searching, as the process of reviewing conference proceedings using the search function (e.g. in Microsoft Word or in a PDF file) does not meet the definition set out by the Cochrane Collaboration. Moreover, methods for assessing the quality of the body of evidence have evolved since AMSTAR was developed and should be incorporated into a revised AMSTAR tool.SummaryPotential solutions are presented for each AMSTAR item with the aim of allowing a more thorough assessment of SRs. As the AMSTAR tool is currently undergoing further development, our paper hopes to add to preceding discussions and papers regarding this tool and stimulate further discussion.

BackgroundInter-rater reliability (IRR) is mainly assessed based on only two reviewers of unknown expertise. The aim of this paper is to examine differences in the IRR of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and R(evised)-AMSTAR depending on the pair of reviewers.MethodsFive reviewers independently applied AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR to 16 systematic reviews (eight Cochrane reviews and eight non-Cochrane reviews) from the field of occupational health. Responses were dichotomized and reliability measures were calculated by applying Holsti’s method (r) and Cohen’s kappa (κ) to all potential pairs of reviewers. Given that five reviewers participated in the study, there were ten possible pairs of reviewers.ResultsInter-rater reliability varied for AMSTAR between r = 0.82 and r = 0.98 (median r = 0.88) using Holsti’s method and κ = 0.41 and κ = 0.69 (median κ = 0.52) using Cohen’s kappa and for R-AMSTAR between r = 0.77 and r = 0.89 (median r = 0.82) and κ = 0.32 and κ = 0.67 (median κ = 0.45) depending on the pair of reviewers. The same pair of reviewers yielded the highest IRR for both instruments. Pairwise Cohen’s kappa reliability measures showed a moderate correlation between AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR (Spearman’s ρ =0.50). The mean inter-rater reliability for AMSTAR was highest for item 1 (κ = 1.00) and item 5 (κ = 0.78), while lowest values were found for items 3, 8, 9 and 11, which showed only fair agreement.ConclusionsInter-rater reliability varies widely depending on the pair of reviewers. There may be some shortcomings associated with conducting reliability studies with only two reviewers. Further studies should include additional reviewers and should probably also take account of their level of expertise.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0380-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Our findings suggest that, while some trial-related information is well reported, a good part of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in bipolar disorder falls well below the required and also practically feasible level for many aspects essential for adequate interpretation of methodological quality and clinical relevance. Authors should be further encouraged to follow the CONSORT criteria.

Background Factors contributing to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 outside the acute care hospital setting have been described in detail. However, data concerning risk factors for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in hospitalized patients remain scarce. To close this research gap and inform targeted measures for the prevention of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections, we analyzed nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 cases in our hospital during a defined time period. Methods Data on nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in hospitalized patients that occurred between May 2020 and January 2021 at Charité university hospital in Berlin, Germany, were retrospectively gathered. A SARS-CoV-2 infection was considered nosocomial if the patient was admitted with a negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test and subsequently tested positive on day five or later. As the incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 can be longer than five days, we defined a subgroup of “definite” nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 cases, with a negative test on admission and a positive test after day 10, for which we conducted a matched case–control study with a one to one ratio of cases and controls. We employed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors significantly increasing the likelihood of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections. Results A total of 170 patients with a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. The majority of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 patients (n = 157, 92%) had been treated at wards that reported an outbreak of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 cases during their stay or up to 14 days later. For 76 patients with definite nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections, controls for the case–control study were matched. For this subgroup, the multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed documented contact to SARS-CoV-2 cases (odds ratio: 23.4 (95% confidence interval: 4.6–117.7)) and presence at a ward that experienced a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (odds ratio: 15.9 (95% confidence interval: 2.5–100.8)) to be the principal risk factors for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions With known contact to SARS-CoV-2 cases and outbreak association revealed as the primary risk factors, our findings confirm known causes of SARS-CoV-2 infections and demonstrate that these also apply to the acute care hospital setting. This underscores the importance of rapidly identifying exposed patients and taking adequate preventive measures.