OBJECTIVES: To summarize and synthesize evidence on the utility and methodological quality of cognitive-based interventions on cognitive performance and associated secondary outcomes among healthy older adults in Asia, as well as novel, culture-specific components of cognitive interventions across the region.

DATA SOURCES: The PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases were searched through May 2020.

ELIGIBILITY: Studies including individuals aged 60 years and above, who had no previous history of physical and/or mental illness. Few restrictions placed on intervention design, duration and mode of delivery, provided that participants were randomized to study conditions, and intervention included components addressing at least one cognitive domain.

METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through MEDLINE (PubMed), EBSCO, and SCOPUS databases to collect full English articles related to school-based CSA intervention programs published from 2000 to 2021.

RESULTS: A total of 29 studies from randomized control trial and quasi-experimental from several countries was analyzed. Comparisons within group of pre-post intervention for knowledge, skills, and attitude were measured by standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI of -1.06 (95% CI: -1.29, -0.84), -0.91 (95% CI: -1.2, -0.61), and -0.51 (95% CI: -3.61, 0.58), respectively. Meanwhile for between intervention and control group comparisons, the SMD of knowledge was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.18), skills was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.71), and attitude was 1.76 (95% CI: 0.46, 3.07).

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin C versus comparative interventions in patients with COVID-19. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS: The meta-analysis of eleven trials using a random-effects model revealed significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality with the administration of vitamin C among patients with COVID-19 relative to no vitamin C (pooled odds ratio = 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.92). Subgroup analysis of studies that included patients with severe COVID-19 also produced findings of significant mortality reduction with the administration of vitamin C relative to no vitamin C (pooled odds ratio = 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.84).

METHODS: This is a systematic review protocol describing essential reporting items based on the PRISMA for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P) (Registration number: CRD42020220636). We aim to review the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of hf-rTMS at DLPFC in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as migraine prophylactic treatment. We will search Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Biomed Central for relevant articles from randomised controlled clinical trials that used hf-rTMS applied at DLPFC for the treatment of migraine. The risk of bias will be assessed using the version 2 "Risk of bias" tool from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1. We will investigate the evidence on efficacy, tolerability and safety and we will compare the outcomes between the hf-rTMS intervention and sham groups.

DESIGN: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing intraperitoneal lidocaine and placebo in adults undergoing surgery were included.

RESULTS: Our systematic review included 24 RCTs (n = 1824). The intraperitoneal lidocaine group was significantly associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest (MD, -0.87, 95% CI, -1.04 to -0.69) and at movement (MD, -0.50, 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.08) among adult patients after surgery. Its administration also significantly decreased morphine consumption (MD, -6.42 mg, 95% CI, -11.56 to -1.27) and lowered the incidence of needing analgesia (OR, 0.22, 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.35). Intraperitoneal lidocaine statistically reduced time to resume regular diet (MD, 0.16 days; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.01) and lowered postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR, 0.54, 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.75).

METHODS: Sleep clinic patients were 3,965 consecutive adults diagnosed with OSA by in-laboratory polysomnography from 2006 to 2010 at a tertiary hospital sleep clinic. Characteristics of these patients were compared with participants of five recent RCTs examining the effect of CPAP on adverse CV events in OSA. The percentage of patients with severe (apnea-hypopnea index, [AHI] ≥ 30 events/h) or any OSA (AHI ≥ 5 events/h) who met the eligibility criteria of each RCT was determined, and those criteria that excluded the most patients identified.

RESULTS: Compared to RCT participants, sleep clinic OSA patients were younger, sleepier, more likely to be female and less likely to have established CV disease. The percentage of patients with severe or any OSA who met the RCT eligibility criteria ranged from 1.2% to 20.9% and 0.8% to 21.9%, respectively. The eligibility criteria that excluded most patients were preexisting CV disease, symptoms of excessive sleepiness, nocturnal hypoxemia and co-morbidities.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included all prospective controlled studies (randomised and non-randomised) comparing rooming-in to nursery care that reported full or partial breastfeeding up to six months. We used the 2016 search results of the Cochrane review and updated the search to August 2018 using OVID MEDLINE. Duplicate data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed. Meta-analyses were performed using REVMAN 5. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence. Seven studies were included, five had 24-hour-per-day, one daytime only and one 8-hours-per-day rooming-in. Four studies had at least one additional co-intervention: Differences in delivery room management, and educational packages. All studies contributing to meta-analyses had 24-hour rooming-in. There was no difference in the proportion of infants on full breastfeeding at 3 months (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.54; very-low-quality evidence), 4 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; very-low-quality evidence) and 6 months (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.58; low-quality evidence). The proportion of infants on partial breastfeeding at 3-4 months was higher with rooming-in (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.61; very-low-quality evidence).

OBJECTIVES: We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s.

METHODS: We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible.

RESULTS: We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.

RESULTS: Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, and type of formulation.

SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We searched five online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The date of last search was 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised clinical trials assessing any type of gene therapy in people diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager to prepare the review. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality/overall survival (whatever data were provided), serious adverse events during treatment, and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were proportion of people with disease progression, adverse events considered non-serious, and proportion of people without improvement in liver function tests. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR), dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR), and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary analyses were based on intention-to-treat and outcome data at the longest follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised clinical trials with 364 participants. The participants had unresectable (i.e. advanced inoperable) hepatocellular carcinoma. We found no trials assessing the effects of gene therapy in people with operable hepatocellular carcinoma. Four trials were conducted in China, one in several countries (from North America, Asia, and Europe), and one in Egypt. The number of participants in the six trials ranged from 10 to 129 (median 47), median age was 55.2 years, and the mean proportion of males was 72.7%. The follow-up duration ranged from six months to five years. As the trials compared different types of gene therapy and had different controls, we could not perform meta-analyses. Five of the six trials administered co-interventions equally to the experimental and control groups. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest in this review. The certainty of evidence was very low in five of the six comparisons and low in the double-dose gene therapy comparison. Below, we reported the results of the primary outcomes only. Pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of Pexa-Vec plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone on overall survival (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.82; 1 trial (censored observation at 20-month follow-up), 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 1 trial at 20 months after treatment, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial reported quality of life narratively as "assessment of quality of life and time to symptomatic progression was confounded by the high patient dropout rate." Adenovirus-thymidine kinase with ganciclovir (ADV-TK/GCV) plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at the two-year follow-up (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.76; 1 trial, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at five-year follow-up (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.73; 1 trial, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Recombinant human adenovirus-p53 with hydroxycamptothecin (rAd-p53/HCT) versus hydroxycamptothecin alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of rAd-p53/HCT versus hydroxycamptothecin alone on the overall survival at 12-month follow-up (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.16 to 60.47; 1 trial, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. rAd-p53/5-Fu (5-fluorouracil) plus transarterial chemoembolisation versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone The trial included 46 participants. We had insufficient data to assess overall survival. The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. E1B-deleted (dl1520) adenovirus versus percutaneous ethanol injection The trial included 10 participants. It did not report data on overall survival, serious adverse events, or health-related quality of life. One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial received a national research grant, one trial by the Pedersen foundation, and three were industry-funded trials. We found five ongoing randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis.

OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious.

RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool.

SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking.

FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The systematic review, will be conducted by extensively searching different databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley and ProQuest to identify randomised controlled trials (with no time frame) which relate to the administration of probiotics to patients with colorectal cancer. The search strategy will include words like colorectal cancer, probiotics, Bifidobacterium, clinical trials etc. A systematic search of databases was performed between 17 and 20 January 2020. Two reviewers will independently review the studies and also search the reference lists of the eligible studies to obtain more references. Data will be extracted from the eligible studies using standardised data extraction form. After assessing the risk of bias, qualitative analysis will be used to synthesise the systematic review.

METHODS: We assessed the use of composite outcomes in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published till November 2017. Two authors reviewed the components of the composite outcomes to compare their patient importance and computed the ratios of effect sizes and event rates between the components, with an a priori threshold of 1.5, indicating a substantial difference. Descriptive statistics were presented.

RESULTS: We extracted 7,766 outcomes in 2,134 RCTs in 312 systematic reviews. Among them, 55 composite outcomes (0.7%) were identified in 46 RCTs. The vast majority (92.7%) of composite outcomes had 2 components, with death being the most common component (included 51 times [92.7%]). The components in nearly three-quarters of the composite outcomes (n = 40 [72.7%]) had different patient importance, while the effect sizes and event rates differed substantially between the components in 27 (49.1%) and 35 (63.6%) outcomes, respectively, with up to 43-fold difference in the event rates observed.