Hasan, Bashar

9010 Background: BO among oncology professionals is prevalent and may have changed following the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a meta-analysis of MENA studies to evaluate temporal trends in overall burnout and subdomains, identify contributing predictors, and assess the screening performance of thought of quitting oncology (TQ). Methods: Ten cross-sectional studies (N = 2,486) reporting Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) outcomes were included: six pre-COVID and four post-COVID. Pooled prevalence estimates were generated for emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), personal accomplishment (PA), and overall BO. Study-level meta-regression evaluated the effects of time period (pre- vs post-COVID), demographics, specialty, and their interaction on observed trends. Performance of TQ was assessed as a screening tool with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Results: The pooled prevalence of BO was 57.1% (95% CI, 40.6–72.8), increased from 48.2% in the pre-COVID period to 77.2% post-COVID (Δ +29.0 percentage points). High EE increased from 41.3% pre-COVID to 70.9% post-COVID (Δ +29.6 percentage points). DP increased from 36.8% to 55.8% (Δ +19.0 percentage points). Low PA showed minimal change (35.4% pre-COVID vs 35.1% post-COVID; Δ −0.3 percentage points). The heterogeneity estimate was high due to inter-study differences related to time period, setting, and baseline burnout prevalence, which were statistically adjusted for. TQ screening demonstrated reasonable sensitivity (82.4%) and PPV (79.9%), but low specificity (46.5%) and NPV (50.5%). Table 1 shows study-level factors contributing to BO prevalence trends. Conclusions: BO among oncology professionals increased post-COVID in the MENA region. The rise was driven by age-dependent effects plus time period. EE increased uniformly, while DP and low PA showed more complex patterns. A single-item question assessing TQ demonstrated strong rule-in screening utility for identifying clinicians at risk. Meta-regression analysis of study-level moderators of BO prevalence. Outcome Best Predictor(s) R² Pattern EE Period + Age + Med Onc. % 86.2% Additive effects: Post-COVID, younger, more Med Onc. independently increase EE DP None significant 0.0% PA Period × Age 50.4% Moderation: Age moderates pandemic effect on PA Overall Burnout Period × Age 55.3% Moderation: Age moderates pandemic effect on BO

Objective: The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the agreement rate on judgments made using the Murad tool by different systematic review teams. Introduction: Evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series is challenging but some tools do exist for this purpose. We leveraged the presence of studies that have been evaluated by different systematic review teams to assess the inter-consensus agreement among different teams on Murad tool domains. Methods: Using a back-citation method, we identified systematic reviews that used the Murad tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. We calculated observed agreement and Gwet’s agreement coefficient on judgments made about each signaling question. Results: We identified 982 systematic reviews that cited the Murad tool and collectively cited 59,080 references. The final data comprised of 81 duplicated case reports and series assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. Overall, the signaling questions had very high observed agreement with 5 of the 8 questions having agreement over 75%. The signaling questions with the highest agreement addressed the adequacy of the ascertainment of the exposure (coefficient 0.959), ascertainment of the outcome (coefficient 0.829), presence of a dose-response gradient (perfect agreement), and clarity of reporting (coefficient 0.755). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates overall high agreement among different systematic review teams that used the Murad tool for appraisal of the same case series and case reports. Leveraging duplicated studies across systematic reviews is a feasible way to retrospectively assess the reliability of the tool.

Abstract Background Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, evidence comparing different PBI modalities is limited. Methods This trial emulation uses electronic health records from a multi-state large tertiary health system. Three PBI modalities were compared: proton radiation therapy, photon radiation therapy, and applicator-based brachytherapy. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance confounders. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR). Results Between 2013 and 2023, 1041 women with early-stage breast cancer were treated with PBI. Of these, 1026 patients were included in the analyses. The median age was 66 years; 22.51% had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 97.56% were estrogen receptor positive. With median follow-up of 38.2 months, the rate of IBR in the overall group was 3.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99% to 4.65%) at 3 years. After IPW, compared with photon PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for proton PBI was 2.11 (95% CI = 0.70 to 6.33) and for brachytherapy, 3.86 (95% CI = 1.39 to 10.69). Compared with proton PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 1.83 (95% CI = 0.88 to 3.81). IBR risk was similar across PBI modalities for patients with tumor size ≤ 10 mm and in patients treated for DCIS. Among patients with tumor size >10 mm, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 7.64 (95% CI = 1.64 to 35.58) and 3.59 (95% CI = 1.22 to 10.56) relative to photons and protons, respectively. Conclusion PBI with applicator-based brachytherapy was associated with higher IBR than photon or proton PBI in patients with tumor size > 10 mm, suggesting the need for more careful PBI patient selection for this modality.

Background and Aims: With rapid changes in the management landscape of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), this technical systematic review addresses 4 critical Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions to provide guidance to the formulation of recommendations to the 2025 AASLD practice guideline for management of CHB. Approach: The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes were evaluated across 4 key PICOs: (1) antiviral therapy for prevention of horizontal HBV transmission in high-risk groups, (2) antiviral therapy versus observation for persons in the immune-tolerant phase, (3) discontinuation versus continuation of nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy in HBeAg-negative individuals with undetectable HBV DNA, and (4) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in non-cirrhotic individuals with HBsAg clearance or co-infections with HCV, HDV, or HIV. Results: For PICO 1, limited evidence suggests antiviral therapy may reduce horizontal transmission risk, though with low certainty. PICO 2 analyses reveal uncertain benefits of treating persons in the immune-tolerant phase, with very low certainty due to heterogeneity and bias. PICO 3 analyses demonstrate that discontinuing antiviral therapy in persons who are HBeAg negative with undetectable HBV DNA increases HBsAg loss rates (OR: 12.65, 95% CI: 1.58–101.51) but carries moderate risks of virologic relapse (OR: 47.17, 95% CI: 2.79–797.35) and clinical flares. PICO 4 analyses on several cohort studies showed that in patients co-infected with HCV, HBV, or HIV, the annual incidence of HCC was higher than the level where screening becomes cost-effective, suggesting that regular liver cancer screening could be beneficial for these patients. Conclusions: Despite low certainty, the findings support shared decision-making in high-risk horizontal transmission scenarios or in treating individuals in the immune tolerance phase, caution in discontinuing antiviral therapy in virologically suppressed individuals without HBsAg loss, and tailored HCC surveillance for those with co-infection or cirrhosis.

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment outcomes in developing countries may be impacted by resource constraints. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes of MM treatments across developing regions. Comprehensive searches in five major databases identified 37 eligible studies from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Newer novel agents including daratumumab, carfilzomib, and pomalidomide showed limited use across studies. For patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), the pooled overall survival rate at longest follow-up (2.5-12.5 years) was 62% (95% CI: 48-75%), with high heterogeneity (I²=92%), while the progression-free survival rate at longest follow-up (3-8 years) was 44% (95% CI: 23-67%). Comparative analyses demonstrated ASCT was associated with significantly superior 5-year survival compared to conventional chemotherapy (RR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.38-1.82). Bortezomib-based regimens showed better outcomes than thalidomide-based therapies (HR for overall survival (OS) at 4 years: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-1.0) and alkylating agent-based regimens (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28-0.83). Despite resource limitations, ASCT and certain novel agents are associated with improved survival outcomes for MM patients in developing countries. However, substantial heterogeneity in outcomes suggests variability in healthcare infrastructure, treatment accessibility, and clinical expertise across these regions.

Importance Suicide is a leading cause of death among young people and an escalating public health crisis. Objective To assess the effectiveness and harms of available treatments for suicidal thoughts and behaviors among youths at heightened risk for suicide. Evidence Review A systematic review was conducted searching databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and various gray literature sources from January 1, 2000, to September 26, 2024. We included randomized clinical trials, comparative observational studies, and before-after studies of psychosocial interventions, pharmacologic interventions, neurotherapeutics, emerging therapies, and combination therapies. Eligible patients were youths (aged 5-24 years) with heightened risk for suicide, adolescents from racial and ethnic minority groups known to be at increased risk of suicide, or those exposed to crime or violence. Pairs of independent reviewers selected and appraised studies. Findings This review included 65 studies (33 randomized clinical trials, 13 comparative observational studies, and 19 before-after studies) reporting on 14 534 patients (median age, 15.1 years; 75.1% female patients). Psychosocial interventions comprised psychotherapy interventions (33 studies; cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, collaborative assessment and management of suicidality, dynamic deconstructive psychotherapy, attachment-based family therapy, and family-focused therapy), acute (ie, 1-4 sessions or contacts) psychosocial interventions (19 studies; safety planning, family-based crisis management, motivational interviewing crisis interventions, continuity of care after crisis, and brief adjunctive treatments), and school- or community-based psychosocial interventions (13 studies; social network interventions, school-based skills interventions, suicide awareness or gatekeeper programs, and community-based, culturally tailored adjunct programs). Dialectical behavior therapy showed moderate strength of evidence for reducing suicidal ideation. Other categories of psychosocial treatments showed insufficient to low strength of evidence for reducing suicidal outcomes. None of the studies evaluated adverse events. The evidence base on pharmacologic treatment for youths at risk of suicide was largely nonexistent. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review found that the current evidence on available interventions targeting youths at heightened risk of suicide is uncertain. Medication, neurotherapeutics, and emerging therapies remain unstudied among this population. The limited evidence base calls for the development of novel, developmentally and trauma-informed treatments, as well as multilevel interventions to target the increasing suicide risk among youths.

Abstract Objective Data extraction from the published literature is the most laborious step in conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs). We aim to build a generalizable, automated data extraction workflow leveraging large language models (LLMs) that mimics the real-world 2-reviewer process. Materials and Methods A dataset of 10 trials (22 publications) from a published LSR was used, focusing on 23 variables related to trial, population, and outcomes data. The dataset was split into prompt development (n = 5) and held-out test sets (n = 17). GPT-4-turbo and Claude-3-Opus were used for data extraction. Responses from the 2 LLMs were considered concordant if they were the same for a given variable. The discordant responses from each LLM were provided to the other LLM for cross-critique. Accuracy, ie, the total number of correct responses divided by the total number of responses, was computed to assess performance. Results In the prompt development set, 110 (96%) responses were concordant, achieving an accuracy of 0.99 against the gold standard. In the test set, 342 (87%) responses were concordant. The accuracy of the concordant responses was 0.94. The accuracy of the discordant responses was 0.41 for GPT-4-turbo and 0.50 for Claude-3-Opus. Of the 49 discordant responses, 25 (51%) became concordant after cross-critique, increasing accuracy to 0.76. Discussion Concordant responses by the LLMs are likely to be accurate. In instances of discordant responses, cross-critique can further increase the accuracy. Conclusion Large language models, when simulated in a collaborative, 2-reviewer workflow, can extract data with reasonable performance, enabling truly “living” systematic reviews.

Abstract Introduction Effective pain and anxiety management during the perioperative phase remains a challenge for patients undergoing surgeries and other invasive procedures. The current standard of care involves prescribing analgesics to treat these conditions; however, there has been recent interest in applying multimodal strategies that limit the use of these medications. One such modality is meditation, which has been shown to be effective in alleviating various physical and psychological symptoms in other settings. This systematic review aims to assess how current meditative practices affect perioperative pain and anxiety. Methods We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, APA PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for all available dates. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient‐reported pain and anxiety scores using the Visual Analog Scale, the Brief Pain Inventory, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). For the HADS and STAI scales, only the anxiety and anxiety‐state subgroups were reported, respectively. Results The literature search yielded 1746 articles. A total of 286 full‐text articles were screened, and 16 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of eight studies assessed pain scores after invasive procedures; five reported improvements in pain scores, and three reported no change after meditative practices. Ten studies assessed anxiety outcomes after invasive procedures: nine reported a decrease in overall anxiety levels as a result of meditation practices while one study reported no change in anxiety scores. Conclusion Data from this limited literature suggests that different meditation practices could be effective in alleviating pain and anxiety within the perioperative phase for patients undergoing various types of invasive procedures. Future prospective studies are needed to determine whether routine meditation in the perioperative setting is effective in mitigating perioperative pain and anxiety.

Abstract Background Risk of bias (RoB) tools are critical in systematic reviews and affect subsequent decision‐making. RoB tools should have adequate interrater reliability and interconsensus agreement. We present an approach of post hoc evaluation of RoB tools using duplicated studies that overlap systematic reviews. Methods Using a back‐citation approach, we identified systematic reviews that used the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies‐of Interventions (ROBINS‐I) tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were appraised by more than one systematic review and calculated observed agreement and unweighted kappa comparing the different systematic reviews' assessments. Results We identified 903 systematic reviews that used the tool with 51,676 cited references, from which we eventually analyzed 171 duplicated studies assessed using ROBINS‐I by different systematic reviewers. The observed agreement on ROBINS‐I domains ranged from 54.9% (missing data domain) to 70.3% (deviations from intended interventions domain), and was 63.0% for overall RoB assessment of the study. Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.131 (measurement of outcome domain) to 0.396 (domains of confounding and deviations from intended interventions), and was 0.404 for overall RoB assessment of the study. Conclusion A post hoc evaluation of RoB tools is feasible by focusing on duplicated studies that overlap systematic review. ROBINS‐I assessments demonstrated considerable variation in interconsensus agreement among various systematic reviewes that assessed the same study and outcome, suggesting the need for more intensive upfront work to calibrate systematic reviewers on how to identify context‐specific information and agree on how to judge it.