The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

No abstract

BackgroundThere has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.MethodsA protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.ResultsAfter screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.ConclusionsResults from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

Background: Two reviews and an overview were produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) without alarm symptoms. The goal was to systematically review three key questions (KQs): (1) The effectiveness of screening for these conditions; (2) How adults with chronic GERD weigh the benefits and harms of screening, and what factors contribute to their preferences and decision to undergo screening; and (3) Treatment options for Barrett's esophagus (BE), dysplasia or stage 1 EAC (overview of reviews). Methods: Bibliographic databases (e.g. Ovid MEDLINE®) were searched for each review in October 2018. We also searched for unpublished literature (e.g. relevant websites). The liberal accelerated approach was used for title and abstract screening. Two reviewers independently screened full-text articles. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer (KQ1 and 2). Quality assessments were completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate (KQ3). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We used various risk of bias tools suitable for study design. The GRADE framework was used for rating the certainty of the evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundBetween 1 and 5% of children in industrialized countries are conceived through Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). As infertility and the use of ART may be associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, care plans specific to these pregnancies are needed. We conducted a systematic review to examine the existing care plans specific to women pregnant following Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched by a senior information specialist. The population of interest included women becoming pregnant with ART (e.g., Intra-Uterine Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), and surrogacy). All proposed care plans were sought that pertained to any aspect of care during pregnancy and delivery. Only Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing the recommendations and plans for the care of ART pregnant women were included. The search was restricted to the publication dates 2007 to June 12, 2017 when the search was run. The search was not restricted by language, however only English and French language guidelines were considered for inclusion.ResultsAfter screening 2078 citations, a total of ten CPGs were included. The following key clinical messages were prevalent: (1) although there was no supporting evidence, antenatal care for ART pregnancies should be provided by specialist with knowledge in obstetrics; (2) high-order multiple pregnancies are the greatest risk of ART and selective reduction options should be discussed; (3) there is some evidence of increased risk of congenital abnormalities and prenatal genetic and anatomic screening is recommended, especially in IVF-ICSI pregnancies; (4) due to a lack of or conflicting evidence, treatment of venous thromboembolism, antithrombotic therapy, treatment for hypothyroidism, and women with positive thyroid antibodies is recommended to be the same as in spontaneous pregnancies; and lastly (5) since an increased level of distress is a recognized feature in these pregnancies, psychosocial care and counselling should be considered.ConclusionsThere is a lack of CPGs specific to ART pregnancies. While we identified a small number of recommendations for ART pregnancies, specific interventions and models of care aiming at decreasing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes following ART should be developed, implemented, and evaluated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-019-0667-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Depression affects an individual’s physical health and mental well-being, and in pregnant and postpartum women, has specific adverse short- and long-term effects on maternal, child, and family health. The aim of these two systematic reviews is to identify evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression compared to no screening in the general adult and pregnant and postpartum populations in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings. These reviews will inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library using a randomized controlled trial filter, where applicable, October 4, 2018 and updated to May 11, 2020. We also searched for grey literature (e.g., websites of organizations of health professionals and patients). Study selection for depression screening trials was performed first on title and abstract, followed by full-text screening. Data extraction, assessment of the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation were performed by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results: A total of three trials were included. All three trials were included in the general adult review, while one of the three trials was included in the pregnant and postpartum review. We did not pool results due to substantial differences between studies and high risk of bias. In the general adult review, the first trial (n=1001) evaluated whether screening for depression in adults with acute coronary syndrome compared to usual care improves health-related quality of life, depression symptoms, or the harms of screening at six, 12, and 18 months. There were little to no differences between the groups at 18 months for the outcomes. The second trial included adults (n=1412) undergoing initial consultation for osteoarthritis, evaluated for depression and general health (mental and physical) after initial consultation, and at three, six, and 12 months. The physical component score was statistically significantly lower (worse health) in the screened group at six months; however, this difference was not significant at three or at 12 months. There were no clinically important or statistically significant differences for other outcomes between groups at any time. The third trial (included in both reviews) reported on 462 postpartum women. At six months postpartum, fewer women in the screening group were identified as possibly depressed compared to the control group (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.89) and mean EPDS scores were also statistically significantly lower in the screened group (standardized mean difference 0.34 lower (95%CI 0.15 to 0.52 lower)). All other outcomes did not differ between groups at follow-up. There were serious concerns about the cut-offs used for the questionnaire used to screen, diagnostic confirmation, selective outcome reporting, and the reported magnitude of effects.Discussion: There are limitations of the evidence included in the reviews. There was moderate certainty in the evidence from one trial that screening for depression in the general adult population in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings likely results in little to no difference on reported outcomes, however, the evidence was uncertain from the other two included trials. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for depression in pregnant or postpartum women in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings. Well-conducted and better-reported trials are needed that meet the screening trial criteria used in this review.Systematic review registration: Both protocols have been registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [Adult: CRD42018099690; Pregnancy and postpartum: CRD42018099689] and published (https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13643-018-0930-3).