Conducting high-quality overviews of reviews (OoR) is time-consuming. Because the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) varies, it is necessary to critically appraise SRs when conducting an OoR. A well-established appraisal tool is A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, which takes about 15-32 min per application. To save time, we developed two fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) for assessing the methodological quality of SR for OoR either during the full-text screening stage (Screening FFT) or to the resulting pool of SRs (Rapid Appraisal FFT). To build a data set for developing the FFT, we identified published AMSTAR 2 appraisals. Overall confidence ratings of the AMSTAR 2 were used as a criterion and the 16 items as cues. One thousand five hundred and nineteen appraisals were obtained from 24 publications and divided into training and test data sets. The resulting Screening FFT consists of three items and correctly identifies all non-critically low-quality SRs (sensitivity of 100%), but has a positive predictive value of 59%. The three-item Rapid Appraisal FFT correctly identifies 80% of the high-quality SRs and correctly identifies 97% of the low-quality SRs, resulting in an accuracy of 95%. The FFTs require about 10% of the 16 AMSTAR 2 items. The Screening FFT may be applied during full-text screening to exclude SRs with critically low quality. The Rapid Appraisal FFT may be applied to the final SR pool to identify SR that might be of high methodological quality.

OBJECTIVE: Intensive care units (ICUs) have significant palliative care needs but lack a reliable care framework. This umbrella review addresses them by synthesising palliative care practices provided at end-of-life to critically ill patients and their families before, during, and after ICU admission.
METHODS: Seven databases were systematically searched for systematic reviews, and the umbrella review was conducted according to the guidelines laid out by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).
RESULTS: Out of 3122 initial records identified, 40 systematic reviews were included in the synthesis. Six key themes were generated that reflect the palliative and end-of-life care practices in the ICUs and their outcomes. Effective communication and accurate prognostications enabled families to make informed decisions, cope with uncertainty, ease distress, and shorten ICU stays. Inter-team discussions and agreement on a plan are essential before discussing care goals. Recording care preferences prevents unnecessary end-of-life treatments. Exceptional end-of-life care should include symptom management, family support, hydration and nutrition optimisation, avoidance of unhelpful treatments, and bereavement support. Evaluating end-of-life care quality is critical and can be accomplished by seeking family feedback or conducting a survey.
CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review encapsulates current palliative care practices in ICUs, influencing patient and family outcomes and providing insights into developing an appropriate care framework for critically ill patients needing end-of-life care and their families.

BACKGROUND: Reducing low-value care (LVC) is crucial to improve the quality of patient care while increasing the efficient use of scarce healthcare resources. Recently, strategies to de-implement LVC have been mapped against the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies. However, such strategies\' effectiveness across different healthcare practices has not been addressed. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to investigate the effectiveness of de-implementation initiatives and specific ERIC strategy clusters.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) from 1 January 2010 to 17 April 2023 and used additional search strategies to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria, assessed the SR quality and extracted pre-specified data. We created harvest plots to display the results.
RESULTS: Of 46 included SRs, 27 focused on drug treatments, such as antibiotics or opioids, twelve on laboratory tests or diagnostic imaging and seven on other healthcare practices. In categorising de-implementation strategies, SR authors applied different techniques: creating self-developed strategies (n = 12), focussing on specific de-implementation strategies (n = 14) and using published taxonomies (n = 12). Overall, 15 SRs provided evidence for the effectiveness of de-implementation interventions to reduce antibiotic and opioid utilisation. Reduced utilisation, albeit inconsistently significant, was documented in the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, as well as in laboratory tests and diagnostic imaging. Strategies within the adapt and tailor to context, develop stakeholder interrelationships, and change infrastructure and workflow ERIC clusters led to a consistent reduction in LVC practices.
CONCLUSIONS: De-implementation initiatives were effective in reducing medication usage, and inconsistent significant reductions were observed for LVC laboratory tests and imaging. Notably, de-implementation clusters such as change infrastructure and workflow and develop stakeholder interrelationships emerged as the most encouraging avenues. Additionally, we provided suggestions to enhance SR quality, emphasising adherence to guidelines for synthesising complex interventions, prioritising appropriateness of care outcomes, documenting the development process of de-implementation initiatives and ensuring consistent reporting of applied de-implementation strategies.
BACKGROUND: OSF Open Science Framework 5ruzw.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has found associations between various non-genetic factors and breast cancer (BrCa) risk. This study summarises and appraises the credibility of the available evidence on the association between non-genetic factors and BrCa risk.
METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases were systematically searched for meta-analyses examining non-genetic factors and BrCa incidence or mortality. The strength of the evidence was graded in four categories (i.e., weak, suggestive, highly suggestive, convincing).
RESULTS: A total of 781 meta-analyses from 280 publications were evaluated and graded. We included exposures related to anthropometric measurements, biomarkers, breast characteristics and diseases, diet and supplements, environment, exogenous hormones, lifestyle and social factors, medical history, medication, reproductive history, and pregnancy. The largest number of examined associations was found for the category of diet and supplements and for exposures such as aspirin use and active smoking. The statistically significant (P-value < 0.05) meta-analyses were 382 (49%), of which 204 (53.4%) reported factors associated with increased BrCa risk. Most of the statistically significant evidence (n = 224, 58.6%) was graded as weak. Convincing harmful associations with heightened BrCa risk were found for increased body mass index (BMI), BMI and weight gain in postmenopausal women, oral contraceptive use in premenopausal women, increased androstenedione, estradiol, estrone, and testosterone concentrations, high Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification, and increased breast density. Convincing protective factors associated with lower BrCa risk included high fiber intake and high sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels while highly suggestive protective factors included high 25 hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, adherence to healthy lifestyle, and moderate-vigorous physical activity.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest some highly modifiable factors that protect from BrCa. Interestingly, while diet was the most studied exposure category, the related associations failed to reach higher levels of evidence, indicating the methodological limitations in the field. To improve the validity of these associations, future research should utilise more robust study designs and better exposure assessment techniques. Overall, our study provides knowledge that supports the development of evidence-based BrCa prevention recommendations and guidance, both at an individual level and for public health initiatives.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42022370675.

BACKGROUND: Women experiencing problematic menopausal symptoms report lower health-related quality of life and greater healthcare use than women without symptoms. Not all women want to or are able to take hormone replacement therapy. Strengthening the evidence for menopause symptom-management options, including physical activity, improves agency for women.
OBJECTIVE: This overview assesses effectiveness of physical activity and exercise interventions targeting women experiencing menopause symptoms.
METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Social Science Citation Index were searched (June 2023) for systematic reviews of physical activity and exercise interventions targeting women experiencing menopause. Reviews were assessed using AMSTAR-2 and a best-evidence approach to synthesis without meta-analysis (SWIM) was adopted. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022298908).
RESULTS: Seventeen reviews included 80 unique relevant primary studies with 8983 participants. There is evidence showing improvement of physical, urogenital, and total symptoms following yoga interventions. Evidence for vasomotor and psychological symptoms was inconclusive. Findings for aerobic exercise were inconclusive although there were some examples of beneficial effects on total and vasomotor symptoms. Evidence was very limited for other types of physical activity and impact on physical, sexual and urogenital symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that yoga, and to lesser extent, aerobic exercise may be beneficial for some menopause symptoms, but there is insufficient evidence to recommend a particular form of exercise. Current reviews categorise women on menopause status; broadening this to include ethnicity, income status, employment and other factors will allow better understanding of context for successful interventions.

Background: Correct staging and risk stratification is essential in ensuring prostate cancer patients are offered the most appropriate treatment. Interest has been growing in the use of radiotracers targeting prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), including the use of 18F-PSMA PET-CT, as part of the primary staging or restaging of prostate cancer. Preliminary scoping identified a number of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, individually, these each appear to look at only part of the picture. An overview of reviews aims to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise multiple systematic reviews, related to a relevant research question or questions. We present a protocol for an overview of reviews, which aims to collate existing evidence syntheses exploring the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-PSMA in staging and restaging of prostate cancer. It also aims to highlight evidence gaps in prostate cancer staging or restaging. Methods: This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P). The search strategy will be designed in consultation with a librarian. Searches will be performed in Medline (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, supplemented by a targeted grey literature search, forward citation searching and searching reference lists of included reviews. No language or date restrictions will be applied to the eligibility criteria or the search strategy. Title & abstract and full text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked in full by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal will be performed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool independently by two reviewers, and results will be narratively synthesised. Conclusions: This overview of reviews may be of interest to healthcare professionals, academics and health policy decision-makers. Registration: OSF (September 7, 2023).

This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to synthesize what is known about the effectiveness of strategies for reducing community violence, focusing on those strategies that have been subjected to a systematic review. We aim to answer the following questions in this review: what strategies to reduce community violence have been rigorously evaluated through systematic reviews; which have sufficient evidence of effectiveness, which seem promising, and which appear ineffective; and what implications for practice and policy can be drawn from this large body of research? We anticipate categorizing the results of our review similarly to the original review by Abt and Winship (2016). That is, categorizing reviews by people-based approaches, place-based approaches, and behavior-based approaches. However, given that this is an updated review and we will be incorporating additional studies, we may find that an alternative or additional categorization is warranted and update our categorization accordingly. Implications for policy and practice as they relate to these categories will be discussed.

BACKGROUND: Non-drug interventions are recommended for chronic condition prevention and management yet are underused in clinical practice. Understanding barriers and enablers to using non-drug interventions may help implement non-drug interventions in primary care. We aimed to conduct an overview of reviews to identify and summarise common barriers and enablers for using non-drug interventions for common chronic conditions in primary care.
METHODS: We included qualitative and quantitative reviews that used systematic process or methods to examine barriers and enablers to using non-drug interventions for chronic condition prevention and management in primary care settings. We searched 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL) from inception to September 2022. Two authors independently screened reviews. One author extracted and deductively coded data to Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) (and where relevant, Theoretical Domains Framework [TDF]). A second author validated 10% of extracted data and coding. Data was synthesised thematically using CFIR and TDF. One author assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using a modified AMSTAR 2 tool, with 10% validated by a second author. We assessed overlap between primary studies in included reviews.
RESULTS: From 5324 records, we included 25 reviews, with data predominately from patients. Overall, 130 subthemes (71 barrier and 59 enabler) were identified across 4 CFIR domains (Innovation, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Individuals), and all TDF domains. Common barrier and enabler subthemes were identified for CFIR constructs of Innovation Adaptability, Innovation Cost, Innovation Relative Advantage, Local Attitudes, External Pressure, Local Conditions, Relational Connections, Available Resources, and Access to Knowledge and Information. For TDF domains, important barrier and enabler subthemes were identified for Knowledge, Skills, Environmental Context and Resources, Beliefs about Consequences, Reinforcement, and Emotion.
CONCLUSIONS: We synthesised reviews to provide new insight into common barriers and enablers for using non-drug interventions to prevent and manage chronic conditions in primary care. The factors identified can inform the development of generalisable implementation interventions to enhance uptake of multiple non-drug interventions simultaneously.
BACKGROUND: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022357583).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients\' perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings.
METHODS: An umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary.
CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42023421845.

BACKGROUND: Orthorexia nervosa (ON), characterized by a pathological preoccupation with \"extreme dietary purity,\" is increasingly observed as a mental health condition among young adults and the general population. However, its diagnosis is not formally recognized and has remained contentious.
OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we attempt to overview previous reviews on ON, focusing on the methodological and conceptual issues with ON. This would serve both as a summary and a way to highlight gaps in earlier research.
METHODS: This systematic review took reference from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, and using combinations of the search terms (\"orthorexia\" OR \"orthorexia nervosa\" OR \"ON\") AND (\"review\" OR \"systematic review\" OR \"meta-analysis\"), a literature search was performed on EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO databases from inception up to October 31, 2023. Articles were included if (1) they were written or translated into English and (2) contained information pertaining to the diagnostic stability or validity of ON, or instruments used to measure ON symptoms and behaviors. Only review articles with a systematic literature search approach were included.
RESULTS: A total of 22 reviews were qualitatively reviewed. Several studies have reported variable prevalence of ON and highlighted the lack of thoroughly evaluated measures of ON with clear psychometric properties, with no reliable estimates. ORTO-15 and its variations such as ORTO-11, ORTO-12 are popularly used, although their use is discouraged. Existing instruments lack specificity for pathology and several disagreements on the conceptualization and hence diagnostic criteria of ON exist.
CONCLUSIONS: Previous reviews have consistently highlighted the highly variable (and contradictory) prevalence rates with different instruments to measure ON, lack of stable factor structure and psychometrics across ON measures, paucity of data on ON in clinical samples, and a need for a modern re-conceptualization of ON. The diagnosis of ON is challenging as it likely spans a spectrum from \"normal\" to \"abnormal,\" and \"functional\" to \"dysfunctional.\" \"Non-pathological\" orthorexia is not related to psychopathological constructs in the same way that ON is.