Background and Objectives In long-term care (LTC) facilities, nursing staff are important contributors to resident care and well-being. Despite this, the relationships between nursing staff coverage, care hours, and quality of resident care in LTC facilities are not well understood and have implications for policy-makers. This systematic review summarizes current evidence on the relationship between nursing staff coverage, care hours, and quality of resident care in LTC facilities. Research Design and Methods A structured literature search was conducted using four bibliographic databases and gray literature sources. Abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers using Covidence software. Data from the included studies were summarized using a pretested extraction form. The studies were critically appraised, and their results were synthesized narratively. Results The systematic searched yielded 15,842 citations, of which 54 studies (all observational) were included for synthesis. Most studies (n = 53, 98%) investigated the effect of nursing staff time on resident care. Eleven studies addressed minimum care hours and quality of care. One study examined the association between different nursing staff coverage models and resident outcomes. Overall, the quality of the included studies was poor. Discussion and Implications Because the evidence was inconsistent and of low quality, there is uncertainty about the direction and magnitude of the association between nursing staff time and type of coverage on quality of care. More rigorously designed studies are needed to test the effects of different cutoffs of care hours and different nursing coverage models on the quality of resident care in LTC facilities.

We conducted a systematic review to describe the frequency of mild, atypical, and asymptomatic infection among household contacts of pertussis cases and to explore the published literature for evidence of asymptomatic transmission. We included studies that obtained and tested laboratory specimens from household contacts regardless of symptom presentation and reported the proportion of cases with typical, mild/atypical, or asymptomatic infection. After screening 6789 articles, we included 26 studies. Fourteen studies reported household contacts with mild/atypical pertussis. These comprised up to 46.2% of all contacts tested. Twenty-four studies reported asymptomatic contacts with laboratory-confirmed pertussis, comprising up to 55.6% of those tested. Seven studies presented evidence consistent with asymptomatic pertussis transmission between household contacts. Our results demonstrate a high prevalence of subclinical infection in household contacts of pertussis cases, which may play a substantial role in the ongoing transmission of disease. Our review reveals a gap in our understanding of pertussis transmission.

Objective To determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search. Study selectionPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients.Synthesis A total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria.} Findings of this systematic review were used to develop a clinical decision aid (page 32). This systematic review is one in a series that will inform guidelines on pain treatment in primary care.

Background: Evidence from new health technologies is growing, along with demands for evidence to inform policy decisions, creating challenges in completing health technology assessments (HTAs)/systematic reviews (SRs) in a timely manner. Software can decrease the time and burden by automating the process, but evidence validating such software is limited. We tested the accuracy of RobotReviewer, a semi-autonomous risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool, and its agreement with human reviewers.Methods: Two reviewers independently conducted RoB assessments on a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and their consensus ratings were compared with those generated by RobotReviewer. Agreement with the human reviewers was assessed using percent agreement and weighted kappa (κ). The accuracy of RobotReviewer was also assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve in comparison to the consensus agreement of the human reviewers. Results:The study included 372 RCTs. Inter-rater reliability ranged from κ = −0.06 (no agreement) for blinding of participants and personnel to κ = 0.62 (good agreement) for random sequence generation (excluding overall RoB).RobotReviewer was found to use a high percentage of "irrelevant supporting quotations" to complement RoB assessments for blinding of participants and personnel (72.6%), blinding of outcome assessment (70.4%), and allocation concealment (54.3%). Conclusion:RobotReviewer can help with risk of bias assessment of RCTs but cannot replace human evaluations. Thus, reviewers should check and validate RoB assessments from RobotReviewer by consulting the original article when not relevant supporting quotations are provided by RobotReviewer. This consultation is in line with the recommendation provided by the developers. K E Y W O R D Sartificial intelligence, health technology assessment (HTA), inter-rater reliability, randomized controlled trial, risk of bias, systematic review | INTRODUCTIONKnowledge synthesis products such as health technology assessments (HTAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) are important sources of high-quality information for policy makers, and the production of these assessments and reports requires expertise, human resources, and time. 1 Given the proliferation of health technologies and