ObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 20 July 2020.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian random effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results23 randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis performed on 26 June 2020. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low because of risk of bias (lack of blinding) and serious imprecision. Glucocorticoids were the only intervention with evidence for a reduction in death compared with standard care (risk difference 37 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 63 fewer to 11 fewer, moderate certainty) and mechanical ventilation (31 fewer per 1000 patients, 47 fewer to 9 fewer, moderate certainty). These estimates are based on direct evidence; network estimates for glucocorticoids compared with standard care were less precise because of network heterogeneity. Three drugs might reduce symptom duration compared with standard care: hydroxychloroquine (mean difference −4.5 days, low certainty), remdesivir (−2.6 days, moderate certainty), and lopinavir-ritonavir (−1.2 days, low certainty). Hydroxychloroquine might increase the risk of adverse events compared with the other interventions, and remdesivir probably does not substantially increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. No other interventions included enough patients to meaningfully interpret adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation.ConclusionGlucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care. The effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is included as a supplement.Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Background Knowledge translation (KT) platforms are organisations, initiatives and networks that focus on supporting evidence-informed policy-making at least in part about the health-system arrangements that determine whether the right programmes, services and products get to those who need them. Many descriptions and evaluations of KT platforms in low- and middle-income countries have been produced but, to date, they have not been systematically reviewed. Methods We identified potentially relevant studies through a search of five electronic databases and a variety of approaches to identify grey literature. We used four criteria to select eligible empirical studies. We extracted data about seven characteristics of included studies and about key findings. We used explicit criteria to assess study quality. In synthesising the findings, we gave greater attention to themes that emerged from multiple studies, higher-quality studies and different contexts. Results Country was the most common jurisdictional focus of KT platforms, EVIPNet the most common name and high turnover among staff a common infrastructural feature. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues were the activities/outputs that were the most extensively studied and viewed as helpful, while rapid evidence services were the next most studied but only in a single jurisdiction. None of the summative evaluations used a pre–post design or a control group and, with the exception of the evaluations of the influence of briefs and dialogues on intentions to act, none of the evaluations achieved a high quality score. Conclusions A large and growing volume of research evidence suggests that KT platforms offer promise in supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries. KT platforms should consider as next steps expanding their current, relatively limited portfolio of activities and outputs, building bridges to complementary groups, and planning for evaluations that examine ‘what works’ for ‘what types of issues’ in ‘what types of contexts’.

Informing the health policymaking process with the best available scientific evidence has become relevant to health systems globally. Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTP), such as the World Health Organization’s Evidence Informed Policy Networks (EVIPNet), are a recognized strategy for linking research to action. This report describes the experience of implementing EVIPNet in Chile, from its objectives, organizational structure, strategy, activities, and main outputs, to its evolution over the course of its first year. Lessons learned are also covered. Of the activities initiated by EVIPNet-Chile, the Rapid Response Service proved to be a good starting point for engaging policymakers. Capacity building workshops and policy dialogues with relevant stakeholders were also successful. Additionally, EVIPNet-Chile developed a model for engaging academic institutions in policymaking through a network focused on preparing evidence briefs. A number of challenges, such as changing methods for producing rapid evidence syntheses, were also identified. This KTP implementation model located in a Ministry of Health could contribute to the development of similar initiatives in other health systems.

J, et al. Using evidenceinformed policies to tackle overweight and obesity in Chile. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2017;41:e156. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2017.156 An increasing number of studies from countries around the globe have described a cumulative proportion of the population suffering from overweight or obesity. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that in 2008, this epidemic reached catastrophic levels, affecting at least 35% of adults 20+ years of age and causing over 2.8 million premature deaths per year worldwide (1).The overweight and obesity epidemic is threatening the developed as much as the developing world (2). In countries that pertain to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), estimates show that 1 in 5 children are either overweight or obese and 18% of adults are obese (3). In Latin American countries, 20% -25% of the population under 19 years of age (more than 25 million children and 15 million adolescents) are either overweight or obese (4) and almost 1 in 4 adults are obese (5).Chile was on the same path as prevalence of obesity increased from 23.2% in 2003 to 31.2% in 2017 and overweight increased from 37.8 % to more than 39% during the same time period (6). Moreover, 10.3% of children less than 6 years of age (7) were obese in 2014, as was 1 of every 4 children entering primary school in 2013 (8).An additional concern regarding the overweight and obesity epidemic in Chile is its unequal distribution. Obesity prevalence among people with a lower level of education almost doubles its prevalence, compared to those with the highest level of education. Moreover, the unequal distribution is also observed by genre, with a greater proportion of women affected in low and medium educational level, as shown in Figure 1 (6