Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread personto-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-toperson virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects metaregressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. FindingsOur search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0•18, 95% CI 0•09 to 0•38; risk difference [RD] -10•2%, 95% CI -11•5 to -7•5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2•02 per m; p interaction =0•041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0•15, 95% CI 0•07 to 0•34, RD -14•3%, -15•9 to -10•7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; p interaction =0•090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0•22, 95% CI 0•12 to 0•39, RD -10•6%, 95% CI -12•5 to -7•7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.Funding World Health Organization.

CBT for anxious children is an effective treatment with or without active parental involvement. However, CBT with active parental involvement emphasizing CM or TC may support long-term maintenance of treatment gains. RESULTS should be replicated as additional RCTs are published.

Background: Investigations of age effects on youth anxiety outcomes in randomized trials (RCTs) of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) have failed to yield a clear result due to inadequate statistical power and methodologic weaknesses. We conducted an individual patient data metaanalysis to address this gap. Question: Does age moderate CBT effect size, measured by a clinically and statistically

Objective:We conducted an expedited knowledge synthesis (EKS) to facilitate evidenceinformed decision making concerning youth suicide prevention, specifically school-based strategies and nonschool-based interventions designed to prevent repeat attempts.Methods: Systematic review of review methods were applied. Inclusion criteria were as follows: systematic review or meta-analysis; prevention in youth 0 to 24 years; peer-reviewed English literature. Review quality was determined with AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Nominal group methods quantified consensus on recommendations derived from the findings. Results:No included review addressing school-based prevention (n = 7) reported decreased suicide death rates based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled cohort studies (CCSs), but reduced suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, and proxy measures of suicide risk were reported (based on RCTs and CCSs). Included reviews addressing prevention of repeat suicide attempts (n = 14) found the following: emergency department transition programs may reduce suicide deaths, hospitalizations, and treatment nonadherence (based on RCTs and CCSs); training primary care providers in depression treatment may reduce repeated attempts (based on one RCT); antidepressants may increase short-term suicide risk in some patients (based on RCTs and meta-analyses); this increase is offset by overall population-based reductions in suicide associated with antidepressant treatment of youth depression (based on observational studies); and prevention with psychosocial interventions requires further evaluation. No review addressed sex or gender differences systematically, Aboriginal youth as a special population, harm, or cost-effectiveness. Consensus on 6 recommendations ranged from 73% to 100%.

IntroductionProper strategies to minimise the risk of infection in individuals handling the bodies of deceased persons infected with 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) are urgently needed. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to scope and assess the effects of specific strategies for the management of the bodies.MethodsWe searched five general, three Chinese and four coronavirus disease (COVID-19)–specific electronic databases. We searched registries of clinical trials, websites of governmental and other relevant organisations, reference lists of the included papers and relevant systematic reviews, and Epistemonikos for relevant systematic reviews. We included guidance documents providing practical advice on the handling of bodies of deceased persons with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Then, we sought primary evidence of any study design reporting on the efficacy and safety of the identified strategies in coronaviruses. We included evidence relevant to contextual factors (ie, acceptability). A single reviewer extracted data using a pilot-tested form and graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. A second reviewer verified the data and assessments.ResultsWe identified one study proposing an uncommon strategy for autopsies for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. The study provided very low-certainty evidence that it reduced the risk of transmission. We identified 23 guidance documents providing practical advice on the steps of handling the bodies: preparation, packing, and others and advice related to both the handling of the dead bodies and the use of personal protective equipment by individuals handling them. We did not identify COVID-19 evidence relevant to any of these steps.ConclusionWhile a substantive number of guidance documents propose specific strategies, we identified no study providing direct evidence for the effects of any of those strategies. While this review highlights major research gaps, it allows interested entities to build their own guidance.

Overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs) provide rapid access to high quality, consolidated research evidence about prevention intervention options, supporting evidence-informed decision-making, and the identification of fruitful areas of new research. This OSR addressed three questions about prevention strategies for child and adolescent anxiety: (1) Does the intervention prevent anxiety diagnosis and/or reduce anxiety symptoms compared to passive controls? (2) Is the intervention equal to or more effective than active controls? (3) What is the evidence quality (EQ) for the intervention? Prespecified inclusion criteria identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2000-2014) with an AMSTAR quality score ≥ 3/5. EQ was rated using Oxford evidence levels EQ1 (highest) to EQ5 (lowest). Three reviews met inclusion criteria. One narrative systematic review concluded school-based interventions reduce anxiety symptoms. One meta-analysis pooled 65 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; any intervention) and reported a small, statistically significant reduction in anxiety symptoms and diagnosis incidence. Neither review provided pooled effect size estimates for specific intervention options defined by type (i.e., universal/selective/indicated), intervention content, or comparison group (i.e., passive/active control), thus precluding EQ ratings. One meta-analysis pooled trials of vigorous exercise and reported small, nonstatistically significant reductions in anxiety symptoms for comparisons against passive and active controls (EQ1). Better use of primary studies in meta-analyses, including program-specific pooled effect size estimates and network meta-analysis is needed to guide evidence-informed anxiety prevention program choices. RCTs of innovative community/primary care based interventions and web-based strategies can fill knowledge gaps.

Trustworthy PGs are available to support clinical decisions about depression and anxiety in children and youth, but are few in number. Many existing PGs (up to 80%) may not be clinically valid. Clinicians who implement the high-quality PGs identified here can increase the number of children and youth who receive effective interventions for depression and anxiety, minimize harm, and avoid wasted resources. Clinicians, service planners, youth, and their families should encourage PG developers to increase the pool of high-quality PGs using internationally recognized PG development standards.

No abstract