Timing of introduction of allergenic foods to the infant diet may influence the risk of allergic or autoimmune disease, but the evidence for this has not been comprehensively synthesized. OBJECTIVE To systematically review and meta-analyze evidence that timing of allergenic food introduction during infancy influences risk of allergic or autoimmune disease.

ObjeCtiveTo determine whether feeding infants with hydrolysed formula reduces their risk of allergic or autoimmune disease.

Epidemiological research on the relationship between diet and asthma has increased in the last decade. Several components found in foods have been proposed to have a series of antioxidant, anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory properties, which can have a protective effect against asthma risk. Several literature reviews and critical appraisals have been published to summarize the existing evidence in this field. In the context of this EAACI Lifestyle and asthma Task Force, we summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews on dietary intake and asthma, using the PRISMA guidelines. We therefore report the quality of eligible systematic reviews and summarize the results of those with an AMSTAR score ≥32. The GRADE approach is used to assess the overall quality of the existing evidence. This overview is centred on systematic reviews of nutritional components provided in the diet only, as a way to establish what type of advice can be given in clinical practice and to the general population on dietary habits and asthma.

A PDP might reduce the risk of CRC. Conversely, a WDP is associated with a higher risk of disease.

No abstract

Background Recommendations within guidelines are developed by synthesising the best available evidence; when limited evidence is identified recommendations are generally based on informal consensus. However, there are potential biases in group decision making, and formal consensus methods may help reduce these. Methods We conducted a case study using formal consensus, to develop one set of recommendations within the Neonatal Parenteral Nutrition guideline being produced for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Statements were generated through identification of published guidelines on several topics relating to neonatal parenteral nutrition. Ten high quality guidelines were included, and 28 statements were generated; these statements were rated by the committee via two rounds of voting. The statements which resulted in agreement were then used to develop the recommendations. Results The approach was systematic and provided transparency. Additionally, a number of lessons were learnt; including the value of selecting the appropriate topic, giving adequate time to the process, and ensuring methodologies are understood by the committee for their value and relevance. Conclusion Formal consensus is a valuable option for use within guideline development when specific criteria are met. The approach provides transparent methodology, ensuring clarity on how recommendations are developed.

Six filters from the first study showed sensitivity of 99.5% to 100% and precision of 16.7% to 21.1%. One type of filter was evaluated by two additional systematic reviews (i.e. externally validated) and found that this retrieved 85.2% to 100% of the articles in the reference standard. Twelve filters from the second study had lower sensitivity (48% to 100%) and much lower precision (0.09% to 4.47%).

To update the systematic review which informed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline "Inducing Labour" (NG207), including additional data and analyses, and comparison with a recent individual patient data analysis of 41-versus 42-week induction. Search Strategy: Multiple database search (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase) from inception to 10th September 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different induction timing in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies. Data Collection and Analysis: One reviewer screened, extracted, analysed, and assessed the quality/certainty of the evidence (using ROB1 and GRADE), with second reviewer verification. Main Results: Five week-to-week comparisons, and one overall comparison (induction vs. delayed induction, 20 RCTs, n = 15 725 pregnant women) for assessment of predefined subgroups. Most data were for 41 versus 42 weeks and 39 versus 41 weeks: 10 times as many participants as the other week-to-week comparisons. There was evidence of an effect at 41 versus 42 weeks (five RCTs, n = 5819) in favour of 41-week induction: fewer perinatal deaths and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (low-to-moderate certainty of the evidence); there was no evidence of an effect in either direction for the remaining outcomes (verylow to moderate certainty). There was no evidence of an effect for outcomes