No abstract

The European Union Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening suggests the implementation of organised, population-based breast cancer screening programmes based on mammography every other year for women aged 50 to 69years, ensuring equal access to screening, taking into account potential needs for targeting particular socioeconomic groups. A European survey on coverage and participation, and key organisational and policy characteristics of the programmes, targeting years 2010 and 2014, was undertaken in 2014. Overall, 27 countries contributed to this survey, 26 of the 28 European Union member states (92.9%) plus Norway. In 2014, 25 countries reported an ongoing population-based programme, one country reported a pilot programme and another was planning a pilot. In eight countries, the target age range was broader than that proposed by the Council Recommendation, and in three countries the full range was not covered. Fifteen countries reported not reaching some vulnerable populations, such as immigrants, prisoners and people without health insurance, while 22 reported that participation was periodically monitored by socioeconomic variables (e.g. age and territory). Organised, population-based breast cancer screening programmes based on routine mammograms are in place in most EU member states. However, there are still differences in the way screening programmes are implemented, and participation by vulnerable populations should be encouraged.

HJS is co-chair of the GRADE Working Group but has no direct financial conflict of interest. BCJ: As part of his recruitment to Texas A&M University, BCJ receives funds from Texas A&M AgriLife Research to support investigator-initiated research related to saturated and polyunsaturated fats. Support from Texas A&M AgriLife institutional funds are from interest and investment earnings, not a sponsoring organization, industry, or company. MK declares the following affiliation with the following organizations that could be perceived as a direct or indirect conflict of interest: Director of

No abstract

BackgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are common and increase morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Their control continues to be an unresolved issue worldwide. HAIs epidemiology shows sex/gender differences. Thus the lack of consideration of sex/gender in Cochrane reviews will limit their applicability and capacity to support informed decisions. This study aims to describe the extent to which Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs consider sex and gender.MethodsMethodology study appraising Cochrane reviews of interventions to prevent HAIs. Search methods: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 (launch of the journal) to 31 December 2016. Two authors independently extracted data with EPPI-Reviewer 4 software, and independently appraised the sex/gender content of the reviews with the Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews (SGAT-SR).ResultsThis study included 113 reviews assessing the effects of interventions for preventing HAIs. 100 reviews (88%) used at least one sex or gender-related term. The terminology used was heterogeneous, being “sex” the term used in more reviews (51%). No review defined neither sex nor gender. Thus we could not assess the definitions provided. Consideration of sex and gender was practically absent in the included reviews; in fact, no review met all the applicable items of the SGAT-SR, and 51 reviews (50%) fulfilled no item. No review provided a complete description of the sex and the gender of the samples of the included studies. Only ten reviews (10%) planned to perform sex- and gender-based analysis and only three (3%) could complete the analysis. The method chosen was always the subgroup analysis based on sex (one review) or gender (two reviews). Three reviews (3%) considered sex or gender-related findings in the conclusions.ConclusionConsideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs was practically absent. This lack of attention to sex and gender reduces the quality of Cochrane reviews, and their applicability for all people: women and men, boys and girls, and people of diverse gender identities. Cochrane should attempt to address the shortfalls detected.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4001-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background: There is currently no effective treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal selection of interventions targeting the virus is unknown. Therefore, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support specific treatment against COVID-19 is urgently needed. The use of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) might have a role in the treatment and symptomatic management of patients with COVID-19. It was aimed at providing an overview of the available evidence and ongoing trials concerning the effects of CHMs for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: This is a narrative review of relevant studies. Searches were conducted to identify documents published till April 22, 2020. Electronic databases, evidence-based collections, websites of relevant organizations, and trial registries were consulted. Results: A total of 25 guidelines on the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were identified. Four guidelines provided recommendations on the use of CHMs; these guidelines were developed in China and South Korea and were based on the consensus of experts exclusively. The remaining 21 guidelines provided no guidance on CHMs. No finished RCTs of CHMs for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 was found. According to the evidence evaluated in this review, a Cochrane review of CHMs for severe acute respiratory syndrome and five uncontrolled observational studies of the effects of CHMs in patients with COVID-19, the effects of CHMs for COVID-19 are unknown. A total of 52 ongoing clinical trials of CHM interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were found. These trials will be carried out mostly in China (n = 51). Forty (77%) of the ongoing trials will be randomized, whereas 12 (23%) have an unclear sequence generation procedure. Forty-seven trials (90%) will have a sample size <400 participants. Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, only the Chinese and the South Korean guidelines recommend CHMs as a treatment option for patients with COVID-19. These guidelines base their recommendations on the consensus of experts. Clinical guidelines or health authorities from other countries do not provide advice on CHMs. Due to the absence of RCT, there is currently no reliable evidence on the effects of any specific CHM intervention for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A high number of clinical trials of different herbal products are being currently conducted in China.

ObjectiveTo assess the role of sex as an independent prognostic factor for mortality in patients with sepsis admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry from inception to 17 July 2020.Study selectionStudies evaluating independent associations between sex and mortality in critically ill adults with sepsis controlling for at least one of five core covariate domains prespecified following a literature search and consensus among experts.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently extracted and assessed the risk of bias using Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling adjusted estimates. The Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence.ResultsFrom 14 304 records, 13 studies (80 520 participants) were included. Meta-analysis did not find sex-based differences in all-cause hospital mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; very low-certainty evidence) and all-cause ICU mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.78; very low-certainty evidence). However, females presented higher 28-day all-cause mortality (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.32; very low-certainty evidence) and lower 1-year all-cause mortality (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; low-certainty evidence). There was a moderate risk of bias in the domain adjustment for other prognostic factors in six studies, and the certainty of evidence was further affected by inconsistency and imprecision.ConclusionThe prognostic independent effect of sex on all-cause hospital mortality, 28-day all-cause mortality and all-cause ICU mortality for critically ill adults with sepsis was uncertain. Female sex may be associated with decreased 1-year all-cause mortality.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019145054.