Background SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody measurements can be used to estimate the proportion of a population exposed or infected and may be informative about the risk of future infection. Previous estimates of the duration of antibody responses vary. Methods We present 6 months of data from a longitudinal seroprevalence study of 3276 UK healthcare workers (HCWs). Serial measurements of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike IgG were obtained. Interval censored survival analysis was used to investigate the duration of detectable responses. Additionally, Bayesian mixed linear models were used to investigate anti-nucleocapsid waning. Results Anti-spike IgG levels remained stably detected after a positive result, e.g., in 94% (95% credibility interval, CrI, 91-96%) of HCWs at 180 days. Anti-nucleocapsid IgG levels rose to a peak at 24 (95% credibility interval, CrI 19-31) days post first PCR-positive test, before beginning to fall. Considering 452 anti-nucleocapsid seropositive HCWs over a median of 121 days from their maximum positive IgG titre, the mean estimated antibody half-life was 85 (95%CrI, 81-90) days. Higher maximum observed anti-nucleocapsid titres were associated with longer estimated antibody half-lives. Increasing age, Asian ethnicity and prior self-reported symptoms were independently associated with higher maximum anti-nucleocapsid levels and increasing age and a positive PCR test undertaken for symptoms with longer anti-nucleocapsid half-lives. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies wane within months, and faster in younger adults and those without symptoms. However, anti-spike IgG remains stably detected. Ongoing longitudinal studies are required to track the long-term duration of antibody levels and their association with immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

BackgroundOverviews of reviews (i.e., overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for healthcare decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there are currently no systematically developed reporting guidelines for overviews. This is problematic because the reporting of published overviews varies considerably and is often substandard. Our objective is to use explicit, systematic, and transparent methods to develop an evidence-based and agreement-based reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (PRIOR, Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews).MethodsWe will develop the PRIOR reporting guideline in four stages, using established methods for developing reporting guidelines in health research. First, we will establish an international and multidisciplinary expert advisory board that will oversee the conduct of the project and provide methodological support. Second, we will use the results of comprehensive literature reviews to develop a list of prospective checklist items for the reporting guideline. Third, we will use a modified Delphi exercise to achieve a high level of expert agreement on the list of items to be included in the PRIOR reporting guideline. We will identify and recruit a group of up to 100 international experts who will provide input into the guideline in three Delphi rounds: the first two rounds will occur via online survey, and the third round will occur during a smaller (8 to 10 participants) in-person meeting that will use a nominal group technique. Fourth, we will produce and publish the PRIOR reporting guideline.DiscussionA systematically developed reporting guideline for overviews could help to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of overviews. This, in turn, could help maximize the value and impact of overviews by allowing more efficient interpretation and use of their research findings.

Objective To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Design Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Participants Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. Setting International consensus. Intervention Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. Results From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. Conclusions PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

ObjectivesFor physicians in independent practice, we synthesised evidence on the (1) impacts of insufficient sleep and fatigue on health and performance, and patient safety and (2) effectiveness of interventions targeting insufficient sleep and fatigue.DesignWe systematically reviewed online literature. After piloting, one reviewer selected studies by title and abstract; full texts were then reviewed in duplicate. One reviewer extracted data; another verified a random 10% sample. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias. We pooled findings via meta-analysis when appropriate or narratively.Data sourcesWe searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed for published studies in April 2016; Medline was updated in November 2017. We searched Embase for conference proceedings, and hand-searched meeting abstracts, association and foundation websites.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEnglish or French language primary research studies published from 2000 to 2017 examining the effect of fatigue-related or sleep-related exposures or interventions on any outcome among physicians in independent practice and their patients.ResultsOf 16 154 records identified, we included 47 quantitative studies of variable quality. 28 studies showed associations between fatigue or insufficient sleep and physician health and well-being outcomes. 21 studies showed no association with surgical performance, and mixed findings for psychomotor performance, work performance and medical errors. We pooled data from six cohort studies for patient outcomes. For sleep deprived versus non-sleep deprived surgeons, we found no difference in patient mortality (n=60 436, relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.15, I2=0% (p=0.87)) nor postoperative complications (n=60 201, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03, I2=0% (p=0.45)). The findings for intraoperative complications and length of stay were considerably heterogeneous.ConclusionsFatigue and insufficient sleep may be associated with negative physician health outcomes. Current evidence is inadequate to inform practice recommendations.

Background Overviews of reviews (overviews) provide an invaluable resource for healthcare decision-making by combining large volumes of systematic review (SR) data into a single synthesis. The production of high-quality overviews hinges on the availability of practical evidence-based guidance for conduct and reporting. Objectives Within the broad purpose of informing the development of a reporting guideline for overviews, we aimed to provide an up-to-date map of existing guidance related to the conduct of overviews, and to identify common challenges that authors face when undertaking overviews. Methods We updated a scoping review published in 2016 using the search methods that had produced the highest yield: ongoing reference tracking (2014 to March 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), hand-searching conference proceedings and websites, and contacting authors of published overviews. Using a qualitative meta-summary approach, one reviewer extracted, organized, and summarized the guidance and challenges presented within the included documents. A second reviewer verified the data and synthesis. Results We located 28 new guidance documents, for a total of 77 documents produced by 34 research groups. The new guidance helps to resolve some earlier identified challenges in the production of overviews. Important developments include strengthened guidance on handling primary study overlap at the study selection and analysis stages. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be hampered by inconsistent or lacking guidance. There is ongoing debate about whether, when, and how supplemental primary studies should be included in overviews. Guidance remains scant on how to extract and use appraisals of quality of the primary studies within the included SRs and how to adapt GRADE methodology to overviews. The challenges that overview authors face are often related to the above-described steps in the process where evidence-based guidance is lacking or conflicting. Conclusion The rising popularity of overviews has been accompanied by a steady accumulation of new, and sometimes conflicting, guidance. While recent guidance has helped to address some of the challenges that overview authors face, areas of uncertainty remain. Practical tools supported by empirical evidence are needed to assist authors with the many methodological decision points that are encountered in the production of overviews.

CONTEXT: Digital distraction is being integrated into pediatric pain care, but its efficacy is currently unknown.OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of digital technology distraction on pain and distress in children experiencing acutely painful conditions or procedures.

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the inter-rater and intercenter reliability, usability, and utility of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS).Study Design and Setting: This is a prospective evaluation using 30 systematic reviews of randomized trials, undertaken at three international centers.Results: Reviewers completed AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS in median (interquartile range) 15.7 (11.3), 19.7 (12.1), and 28.7 (17.4) minutes and reached consensus in 2.6 (3.2), 4.6 (5.3), and 10.9 (10.8) minutes, respectively. Across all centers, inter-rater reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 8/11 AMSTAR, 9/16 AMSTAR 2, and 12/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 6/11 AMSTAR, 12/16 AMSTAR 2, and 7/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability for confidence in the results of the review or overall risk of bias was moderate (Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) 0.58, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.30 to 0.85) to substantial (AC1 0.74, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85) for AMSTAR 2 and poor (AC1 À0.21, 95% CI: À0.55 to 0.13) to moderate (AC1 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.83) for ROBIS. It is not clear whether using the appraisals of any tool as an inclusion criterion would alter an overview's findings.Conclusions: Improved guidance may be needed to facilitate the consistent interpretation and application of the newer tools (especially ROBIS).

STUDY SELECTION English-language intervention studies for screening and treatment; observational studies on screening; prospective studies on screening test accuracy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISDual review of titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Single-reviewer data abstraction with verification. Random-effects meta-analysis or bivariate analysis (accuracy).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Pregnancy, fetal/neonatal, and long-term health outcomes; harms of screening; accuracy. RESULTS A total of 76 studies were included (18 randomized clinical trials [RCTs] [n = 31 241], 2 nonrandomized intervention studies [n = 190], 56 observational studies [n = 261 678]). Direct evidence on benefits of screening vs no screening was limited to 4 observational studies with inconsistent findings and methodological limitations. Screening was not significantly associated with serious or long-term harm. In 5 RCTs (n = 25 772), 1-step (International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group) vs 2-step (Carpenter and Coustan) screening was significantly associated with increased likelihood of gestational diabetes (11.5% vs 4.9%) but no improved health outcomes. At or after 24 weeks of gestation, oral glucose challenge tests with 140-and 135-mg/dL cutoffs had sensitivities of 82% and 93%, respectively, and specificities of 82% and 79%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria, and a test with a 140-mg/dL cutoff had sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 81% against the National Diabetes Group Data criteria. Fasting plasma glucose tests with cutoffs of 85 and 90 mg/dL had sensitivities of 88% and 81% and specificities of 73% and 82%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria. Based on 8 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study (n = 3982), treatment was significantly associated with decreased risk of primary cesarean deliveries (relative risk [RR]