BACKGROUND: More than 100 surgical techniques are described for hallux valgus (HV) correction, but the most appropriate technique remains debatable. The aim of this study was to develop and conduct a \"living systematic review\" for the outcome of surgically treated HV.
METHODS: The \"living systematic review\" was conducted per the PRISMA-P and PICOS guidelines and is the basis for the German AWMF S2e guideline \"Hallux valgus\" (033-018). Four common databases and the grey-literature were searched. Eligible were studies on adult patients comparing either two different primary surgical interventions or the same primary surgical intervention for different hallux valgus severities. The main outcome parameters were the osseous correction potential and the patient rated outcome.
RESULTS: Out of 3022 studies, 46 studies (100 arms) were included. The meta-analysis included 31 studies (53 arms). The IMA (1933 procedures) improved on average by 7.3°, without significant group differences. The HVA (1883 procedures) improved on average by 18.9°, with significantly better results for third generation MIS (21.2°). The AOFAS (1338 procedures) improved on average by 33.8 points without significant group differences. The meta-regression revealed constant AOFAS scores over time. 69%/39% of the correction potential for the IMA/HVA could be explained by the preoperative values and 82% of the AOFAS improvement by the preoperative AOFAS scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Open and minimally invasive techniques are powerful tools to correct hallux valgus deformity. Third generation MIS procedures revealed a possible superiority for the correction of the HVA. The AOFAS improvement appeared to be constant over time.
METHODS: Level I; living systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).

UNASSIGNED: Carriers of variant alleles of genes that encode liver CYP450 and UGT enzymes may experience abnormal plasma levels of antipsychotics and, consequently, worse efficacy or tolerability. Although pharmacogenomics is a rapidly developing field, current guidelines often rely on limited, underpowered evidence. We have previously demonstrated that meta-analysis is a viable strategy for overcoming this problem. Here, we propose a project that will expand our previous work and create a living systematic review and meta-analysis of drug plasma level differences between carriers and non-carriers of variant genotype-predicted phenotypes for every pharmacokinetic drug-gene interaction relevant to commonly used antipsychotic drugs.
UNASSIGNED: First, a baseline systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted by searching for observational pharmacogenomics-pharmacokinetic studies. Data on dose-adjusted drug plasma levels will be extracted, and participants will be grouped based on their genotype for each drug-gene pair separately. Differences in plasma drug levels between different phenotypes will be compared using a random-effect ratio-of-means meta-analysis. The risk of bias will be assessed using ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using GRADE. Following the establishment of baseline results, the literature search will be re-run at least once every six months, and the baseline data will be updated and re-evaluated as new evidence is published. A freely available website will be designated to present up-to-date results and conclusions.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review will provide evidence-based results that are continuously updated with evidence as it emerges in the rapidly developing field of pharmacogenomics. These results may help psychiatrists in their decision-making, as clinicians are becoming increasingly aware of the patients\' genetic data as testing becomes more widespread and cheaper. In addition, the results may serve as a scientific basis for the development of evidence-based pharmacogenomics algorithms for personalized dosing of antipsychotics to mitigate potentially harmful drug-gene interactions.

BACKGROUND: Long wait times in the emergency department (ED) are a major issue for health care systems all over the world. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) is a novel strategy to reduce ED wait times when compared to the interventions included in previous research endeavors. To date, comprehensive systematic reviews that include studies involving AI applications in the context of EDs have covered a wide range of AI implementation issues. However, the lack of an iterative update strategy limits the use of these reviews. Since the subject of AI development is cutting edge and is continuously changing, reviews in this area must be frequently updated to remain relevant.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a summary of the evidence that is currently available regarding how AI can affect ED wait times; discuss the applications of AI in improving wait times; and periodically assess the depth, breadth, and quality of the evidence supporting the application of AI in reducing ED wait times.
METHODS: We plan to conduct a living systematic review (LSR). Our strategy involves conducting continuous monitoring of evidence, with biannual search updates and annual review updates. Upon completing the initial round of the review, we will refine the search strategy and establish clear schedules for updating the LSR. An interpretive synthesis using Whittemore and Knafl\'s framework will be performed to compile and summarize the findings. The review will be carried out using an integrated knowledge translation strategy, and knowledge users will be involved at all stages of the review to guarantee applicability, usability, and clarity of purpose.
RESULTS: The literature search was completed by September 22, 2023, and identified 17,569 articles. The title and abstract screening were completed by December 9, 2023. In total, 70 papers were eligible. The full-text screening is in progress.
CONCLUSIONS: The review will summarize AI applications that improve ED wait time. The LSR enables researchers to maintain high methodological rigor while enhancing the timeliness, applicability, and value of the review.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/52612.

During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart. The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Health and care workers (HCW) faced the double burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: as members of a society affected by a public health emergency and as HWC who experienced fear of becoming infected and of infecting others, stigma, violence, increased workloads, changes in scope of practice, among others. To understand the short and long-term impacts in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) on HCW and relevant interventions to address them, we designed and conducted a living systematic review (LSR).
METHODS: We reviewed literature retrieved from MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, the World Health Organization COVID-19 database, the ClinicalTrials.org and the ILO database, published from January 2000 until December 2021. We included quantitative observational studies, experimental studies, quasi-experimental, mixed methods or qualitative studies; addressing mental, physical health and well-being and quality of life. The review targeted HCW; and interventions and exposures, implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic or other PHEICs. To assess the risk of bias of included studies, we used the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were qualitatively synthetized using meta-aggregation and meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled prevalence of some of the outcomes.
RESULTS: The 1013 studies included in the review were mainly quantitative research, cross-sectional, with medium risk of bias/quality, addressing at least one of the following: mental health issue, violence, physical health and well-being, and quality of life. Additionally, interventions to address short- and long-term impact of PHEICs on HCW included in the review, although scarce, were mainly behavioral and individual oriented, aimed at improving mental health through the development of individual interventions. A lack of interventions addressing organizational or systemic bottlenecks was noted.
CONCLUSIONS: PHEICs impacted the mental and physical health of HCW with the greatest toll on mental health. The impact PHEICs are intricate and complex. The review revealed the consequences for health and care service delivery, with increased unplanned absenteeism, service disruption and occupation turnover that subvert the capacity to answer to the PHEICs, specifically challenging the resilience of health systems.

BACKGROUND: Up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) are essential for making evidence-based decisions. During the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a particular need for up-to-date evidence, making the living systematic review (LSR) approach an appropriate review type. However, this approach poses certain challenges.
UNASSIGNED: We aim to provide practice insights and report challenges that we faced while conducting two Cochrane LSRs on COVID-19 treatments with (i) convalescent plasma and (ii) systemic corticosteroids. We address our objective with an experience report and share challenges of the following components based on Iannizzi et al. (2022): study design, publication types, intervention/comparator, outcomes, search strategy, review updates and transparent reporting of differences between review updates.
RESULTS: Regarding the study design, the plasma LSR included different study designs because RCT data were not available at the beginning of the pandemic, whereas for the corticosteroids LSR, which started several months later, RCT data were already available. The challenges in both LSRs included the publication types (preprints were included with caution) and the intervention/comparator, for instance the unavailability of standard of care for either LSR, or SARS-CoV-2 variants occurrence. Further challenges in both LSRs occurred in the components \"outcome sets\" (which had to be adjusted) and \"literature search\". The decision criteria for updating were based on important studies and available resources in both LSRs and policy relevance in the plasma LSR. Transparent reporting of the differences between the various update versions were discussed for both LSRs.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, there are similarities and differences regarding challenges of review components for both LSRs. It is important to keep in mind that the two LSR examples presented here were conducted in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, many of the challenges are attributable to the pandemic and are not specific to LSRs, such as constant adjustments of the outcome sets or changes in the database search. Nevertheless, we believe that some of these aspects are helpful for LSR authors and are applicable to other LSRs outside the pandemic context, particularly in areas where new evidence is rapidly emerging.

BACKGROUND: ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography (CTG) to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. The aim of the present study was to quantify the efficacy of STAN vs CTG and assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE.
METHODS: We performed systematic literature searches to identify randomized controlled trials and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses, calculating pooled risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (OR). We also performed post hoc trial sequential analyses for selected outcomes to assess the risk of false-positive results and the need for additional studies.
RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials including 28 729 women were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences between the groups in operative deliveries for fetal distress (10.9 vs 11.1%; RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.11). STAN was associated with a significantly lower rate of metabolic acidosis (0.45% vs 0.68%; Peto OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.48-0.90). Accordingly, 441 women need to be monitored with STAN instead of CTG alone to prevent one case of metabolic acidosis. Women allocated to STAN had a reduced risk of fetal blood sampling compared with women allocated to conventional CTG monitoring (12.5% vs 19.6%; RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.49-0.80). The quality of the evidence was high to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS: Absolute effects of STAN were minor and the clinical significance of the observed reduction in metabolic acidosis is questioned. There is insufficient evidence to state that STAN as an adjunct to CTG leads to important clinical benefits compared with CTG alone.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this.
METHODS: A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been \'living\' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes.
RESULTS: The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.

With the introduction of therapies to treat geographic atrophy (GA), GA management in clinical practice is now possible. A living systematic review can provide access to timely and robust evidence synthesis. This review found that complement factor 3 and 5 (C3 and C5) inhibition compared to sham likely reduces change in square root GA area at 12 months and untransformed GA area at 24 months. There is likely little to no difference in the rate of systemic treatment-emergent adverse events compared to sham. C3 and C5 inhibition, however, likely does not improve best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 months, and the evidence is uncertain regarding change in BCVA at 24 months. Higher rates of ocular treatment emergent adverse effects with complement inhibition occur at 12 months and likely at 24 months. Complement inhibition likely results in new onset neovascular age-related macular degeneration at 12 months. This living meta-analysis will continuously incorporate new evidence.

It is evident that COVID-19 will remain a public health concern in the coming years, largely driven by variants of concern (VOC). It is critical to continuously monitor vaccine effectiveness as new variants emerge and new vaccines and/or boosters are developed. Systematic surveillance of the scientific evidence base is necessary to inform public health action and identify key uncertainties. Evidence syntheses may also be used to populate models to fill in research gaps and help to prepare for future public health crises. This protocol outlines the rationale and methods for a living evidence synthesis of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with, and transmission of, VOC of SARS-CoV-2.
Living evidence syntheses of vaccine effectiveness will be carried out over one year for (1) a range of potential outcomes in the index individual associated with VOC (pathogenesis); and (2) transmission of VOC. The literature search will be conducted up to May 2023. Observational and database-linkage primary studies will be included, as well as RCTs. Information sources include electronic databases (MEDLINE; Embase; Cochrane, L*OVE; the CNKI and Wangfang platforms), pre-print servers (medRxiv, BiorXiv), and online repositories of grey literature. Title and abstract and full-text screening will be performed by two reviewers using a liberal accelerated method. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed by one reviewer with verification of the assessment by a second reviewer. Results from included studies will be pooled via random effects meta-analysis when appropriate, or otherwise summarized narratively.
Evidence generated from our living evidence synthesis will be used to inform policy making, modelling, and prioritization of future research on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.